66 /
U.S.-
Mexico
Border XXI
Program:
Progress
EPA160/R/00/001
-------
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI PROGRAM: PROGRESS REPORT 1996-2000
The Border XXI Progress Report 1996-2000 is published by
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Mexican Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries
Border XXI Program National Coordinators,
WILLIAM A. NITZE JOS6 LUIS SAMANIEGO LEYVA
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS COORDINATOR
U.S. EPA HEADQUARTERS SEMARNAP
U.S. Project Coordinator
SARAH N. SOWELL
ASSISTANT COORDINATOR, U.S.-MEXICO BORDER PROGRAM
U.S. EPA HEADQUARTERS
Mexican Project Coordinators
ABRAHAM NEHMAD (THROUGH MARCH 2000)
BORDER AFFAIRS OFFICE
SEMARNAP
and
EIKE DUFFING (FROM APRIL 2000)
BORDER AFFAIRS OFFICE
SEMARNAP
Editor
SARAH N. SOWELL
Very special thanks to Dave Fege, Assistant Director of the U.S. EPA San Diego Border Liaison Office, and Gina Weber, U.S.-Mexico Border Program
Coordinator for U.S. EPA Region G, for facilitating the development and organization of this report. Additional thanks go to Santiago Enriquez, SEMARNAP;
Lorena Lopez-Powers, U.S. EPA San Diego Border Liaison Office; and Allyson Siwik, U.S. EPA El Paso Border Liaison Office.
For their support and management in the development of the indicators section of this report, special acknowledgement goes to Rolando Rios
Aguilar, INE/SEMARNAP, and Tomas Torres, U.S. EPA San Diego Border Liaison Office.
The photographs that appear on the cover and throughout this report were taken by Rebekah Hoffacker, U.S. EPA San Diego Border Liaison Office.
For more Information about this publication and the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program, please see the contact information provided in this document.
KEY:FEDERAL AGENCIES IMPLEMENTING BO R D E R XXI
Environmental Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mexican Secretariat for Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries
Mexican Secretariat for Social Development
Natural Resources
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mexican Secretariat for Environment,
• Natural Resources and Fisheries
Border Water Resources
i
International Boundary ati'd Water Commission
U.S. Department :of the Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Health
U.S. Department of Health'; and Human Services
Mexican Secretariat of Health
U.S. Environmental Protectiori Agency
Other U.S.ifederal participants include the U.S. Department of State, the National Oceanic and Atjnospheric Administration,
the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Departrhent of Transportation, '•
. and the U.S. Department of Energy. ; :; •
Other Mexican federal participants include the Secretariat of Foreign Relations; the National Institute for Statistics, Geography, and Information;
the Secretariat of Interior (Civil Protection); the Secretariat of Communication and Transportation; a\\d the Secretariat of Energy.
This report was printed on recycled and recyclable paper with vegetable-based inks.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
7
U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI WORKGROUPS:
KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
21
AIR
27
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
51
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT
AND COMPLIANCE
61
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
89
NATURAL RESOURCES
101
POLLUTION PREVENTION
113
WATER
121
CLOSING REMARKS
69
137
APPENDICES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
ADDENDUM 1
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Assessment
of the Border XXI Program
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION RESOURCES
79
ADDENDUM 2
Border XXI Program Evaluation
and Recommendations by Mexico's Region I
Advisory Council for Sustainable Development
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
ukj -•!,
*.£ r
,4
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
THE PURPOSE
OF THE PROGRESS REPORT
JH, _* U- >»
This report describes progress toward achieving environ-
mental improvements in the border region as a
result of Border XXI Program activities. The report
also describes the challenges faced in addressing
environmental degradation in the transboundary
context, as well as specific limitations of the Bor-
der XXI Program. It evaluates progress toward
achieving the mission and objectives of the Bor-
der XXI Program and details the achievements of
each of the nine Border XXI workgroups since the
program's inception in 1996.
In addition, the report provides quantitative
data based on indicators used to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of border environmental policy and to
measure environmental and human health quality
in the border area. The development of environ-
mental indicators was initiated under the 1996
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Framework Doc-
ument (Framework Document) to determine
whether United States-Mexico environmental poli-
cies and implementation efforts have been address-
ing the most urgent environmental, human health,
and natural resource issues adequately.
The indicators in this report update the
information published in the 1997 Unit-
ed States-Mexico Border Environmental
Indicators Report (1997 Indicators Report).
Appendix 1 to this report provides an
explanation of the various types of indi-
cators this report describes.
Finally, the report presents assess-
ments of and recommendations on the mission, goal, and
three strategies of the Border XXI Program provided by the
two federal advisory committees for the border—the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) in the United States
and its counterpart in Mexico, the Consejo Consultivo para
el Desarrollo Sustentable, Regidn 1 (CCDS, or Region I Advi-
sory Council for Sustainable Development).
Since the current border plan concludes at the end of
2000, the lead agencies for Border XXI hope this report will
serve as a tool for designing the next phase of binational
planning. While many achievements have been made, the
governments of both countries recognize that there is room
for improvement in several areas. An important step in
ensuring further progress is the inclusion of state, local, and
tribal governments, as well as the public ("public"
refers to residents, industry, and nongovernmental
and private organizations that have a stake in the
border) in the establishment of (1) priorities for
the border region, and (2) activities that address
those priorities. This chronicle of achievements
and shortcomings during five years of intensive
binational coordination will help establish a con-
text for dialogue among federal agencies and other
border stakeholders. Through the exchange of
ideas and opinions, the federal governments hope
to initiate a new phase of participation by stake-
holders in the development and implementation
of the next phase of binational cooperation.
THE NEED
FOR BINATIONAL COOPERATION
The U.S.-Mexico border area is a dynamic region
having a distinct composition that is as much dif-
ferentiated by social, economic, and political con-
trasts as it is bound by cultural fusion and the
unique interdependency of its transborder
-*•' J city pairs. It is also one of the most rap-
igE * idly growing regions in each country.
Many factors associated with that growth,
such as increases in commercial activity,
traffic congestion, and consumption of
natural resources; have been linked to envi-
ronmental degradation and deterioration
of the quality of life. Given the complex
structure of the stakeholders that have border interests—two
sovereign countries, 10 border states, several municipalities
and counties, tribal nations, national and international organ-
izations, and the residents of the border—addressing those
concerns requires a coordinated, binational response.
U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI PROGRAM;
^~ ' -1996-2000
Under the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program, the United States
and Mexico collaborate on projects designed to protect the
environment and natural resources of the border region, as well
INTRODUCTION
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
as the health of its residents. The program is an innovative,
binational effort to coordinate environmental and natural
resources management in the border region. The Border XXI
Program works to: (1) alleviate or avoid negative environ-
mental pressures associated with development and (2) foster
forms of social and economic growth that are less damaging
to the environment than those patterns experienced in the past.
With the principal goal of promoting sustainable devel-
opment, the program seeks a balance among social and eco-
nomic factors and environmental protection in border com-
munities and natural areas. The Framework Document out-
lined these strategies to accomplish that goal:
• Ensure Public Involvement
• Build Capacity and Decentralize Environmental
Management
• Ensure Interagency Cooperation
The Border XXI Program serves as a coordinating mech-
anism to bring together federal, tribal, state, and local enti-
ties from both countries to work cooperatively toward
achievement of those objectives. The lead agencies for the
Border XXI Program are the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Mexico's Secretarlct de Media Ambiente,
Reatrsos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of
Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries). In the Unit-
ed States, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) serves
as the lead agency for natural resources activities coordinat-
ed under Border XXI, and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) shares the coordination lead
with EPA on environmental health activities. In Mexico,
the Secretarla de Salud (SSA, or Secretariat of Health) is
responsible for coordinating environmental health activities,
and the Secretarla. de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL, or Sec-
retariat of Social Development) helps coordinate activities
related to solid waste.
Nine binational workgroups implement the Border XXI
Program by developing projects that address specific objec-
tives. Each workgroup operates under the guidance of two
chairpersons, or "co-chairs," one representing the United
States and one representing Mexico. Six of the workgroups
have long-standing histories of binational cooperation in the
areas of (1) water, (2) air, (3) hazardous and solid waste,
(4) pollution prevention, (5) contingency planning and emer-
gency response, and (6) cooperative enforcement and com-
pliance. In 1996, three additional workgroups were creat-
ed under the Border XXI Program to provide a more com-
prehensive approach to border environmental concerns.
Those workgroups focus on issues related to (7) environ-
mental information resources, (8) natural resources, and (9)
environmental health.
v— -
par ~ i.
THE BASIS OP U.S.-MEXICO
BORDER RELATIONS
The level of positive cooperation that exists between the Unit-
ed States and Mexico on environmental matters reflects the
importance of the relationship between the two countries in
the area of environmental issues. After a long history of for-
mal coordination between the two countries, particularly on
water and water infrastructure issues, the United States and
Mexico formally broadened cooperation on border environ-
mental issues by signing the La Paz Agreement in 1983. The
La Paz Agreement established a general framework for devel-
oping cooperative environmental efforts to reduce, eliminate,
or prevent sources of air, water, and land pollution.
In February 1992, the environmental authorities of both
federal governments released the Integrated Border Environ-
mental Plan for the U.S.-Mexican Border Area (IBEP). The
IBEP, a two-year plan, was the first binational federal ini-
tiative created under the assumption that increased liberal-
ization of trade would place additional stress on the envi-
ronment and human health along the border.
The trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) was signed in December 1992 and entered into
force in 1994. In November 1993, the presidents of the
United States and Mexico signed a bilateral agreement estab-
lishing the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) and the North American Development Bank
(NADB) to help develop and finance solid waste, water sup-
ply, and wastewater infrastructure in the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der area. The primary role of the BECC has been to pro-
vide technical assistance to border communities and to cer-
Tha Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment In the Border Area was signed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on February 16, 1984.
INTRODUCTION
2
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
tify environmental infrastructure projects in the border region
for consideration for financing by the NADB and other gov-
ernment and private sources. The NADB's primary role has
been to facilitate financing for the implementation of proj-
ects certified by the BECC.
The United States and Mexico also have a history of
cooperation on natural resources issues that includes a
number of agreements and initiatives to protect migrato-
ry birds, native habitats, and marine
resources and to reduce degradation or
exploitation of forests, air, soil, and nat-
ural areas. "With regard to the U.S.-
Mexico border, the 1997 letter of intent
between DOI and SEMARNAP is par-
ticularly significant because it builds
upon existing cooperative conservation
activities and facilitates a holistic
approach to the preservation of border
ecosystems and habitats in trans-
boundary protected natural areas.
Appendix 2 provides a more detailed
description of other notable agreements
related to cooperation between the
United States and Mexico on natural
resources issues.
In 1996, the Border XXI Program
was initiated to build on the experi-
ences of and improve the specific efforts
undertaken under the IBEP and earli-
er environmental agreements. Border
XXI also includes the BECC and the
NADB as full partners in water, waste-
water, and solid waste infrastructure
activities.
te CONDITIONS, TRENDS,
f" AND PRESSURES ON
§§T THE U
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Generally speaking, the population growth rates in
the border region exceed the national average for each
country. It is likely that the border population will con-
tinue to rise over the next few years, with an increase of
from 5 to 12 million people from 2000 to 2020. Table
1-2 illustrates population growth in the border region.
Economic and Social Conditions
The precursor to the economic boom on the border emerged
in 1965 with Mexico's maquiladora program, an initiative that
encouraged laborers to move to the border area to work in
assembly plants. The program allowed foreign-owned busi-
nesses to establish assembly plants, or
maquiladoras, in Mexico for export pro-
duction. "When NAFTA was implement-
ed in 1994, border activity was spurred
further by an increase in trade between
the United States and Mexico. The
maquiladora industry currendy is the sec-
ond largest source of export earnings in
Mexico. Today, more than 3,000
maquiladora plants throughout the coun-
try employ more than one million work-
ers. More dian 2,000 of those plants are
located in the border region.
While export earnings, industrial
activity, and overall economic growth
have increased since the signing of
NAFTA, the levels of prosperity and
quality of life in the border region have
not followed suit. Although NAFTA has
fostered the creation of some high-wage
jobs, especially in various technical areas,
most of the jobs created in the border
region have been in low-wage and serv-
ice industries. Notwidistanding the overall increase in jobs
and output, poverty and social disparity abound in many
border areas.
The U.S. border population tends to be poorer than that
of the rest of the country, with more than 20 percent living
below the poverty level, compared with 12 percent in the
United States as a whole. Per capita income on the U.S.
side of the border generally falls below die U.S. average. In
1995, no U.S. border county had a per capita income high-
er than that of its respective state. At the national level, the
minimum wage is approximately 8 to 10 times higher in the
United States than in Mexico.
In contrast to the national trend, the per capita income
of the border region in Mexico is high and improving, and
the poverty rates in the Mexican border states are below aver-
age. However, the average per capita income on the Mex-
ican side of the border is still less than half of that on the
U.S. side.6
Population Growth
16
14
12
10
1995 2000 2010 2020
• Projections take into consideration
both natural increases and migration
• Projections assume that birth rates
will remain constant and that death
rates will decrease
• Whether high, medium, or low, all
projections indicate that the border
region will experience a significant
increase in population over the next
20 years
Border Environmental and Public
Health Issues
While economic activity has continued to
increase and the border population has
continued to grow at astonishing rates, the
needs for environmental and infrastructure
improvements have not always been met
at a comparable rate. As a result, the bor-
der area faces many binational environ-
mental challenges, such as limited water
supply and poor water quality, inadequate
or nonexistent sewage treatment, air pol-
lution, little or no treatment and disposal
of hazardous and industrial waste, the
potential for chemical emergencies, inci-
dence of infectious diseases, and lack of
verification of compliance in the trans-
boundary shipment of hazardous wastes.
Those challenges continue to affect the
environmental and economic vitality of the
region. For example, substandard condi-
Table 1-2 tions are apparent in many border areas,
and many residents of both countries live without electrical,
drinking-water, and sewerage connections. In addition, some
conditions have been linked to such health risks as elevated
blood lead levels and respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases.
The depletion of natural resources presents another envi-
ronmental challenge for the border region. Lacking economic
« 1997 Indicators Report, 5.
* Peach, James and James Williams, 42.
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environmental Performance Reviews: United States, (202).
INTRODUCTIO N
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
alternatives, people tend to use natural resources without tak- expansion. In the report U.S.-Mexico Border Ten-Year Out-
ing into consideration the long-term effects of unsustainable look: Environmental Infrastructure Funding Projections, the
use.
The destruction of native habitats through population
growth and the resulting expansion of urban development,
ranching and agricultural activities, mining, recreation, and
tourism have had a severe effect on the natural resource base
in the border region, where geographic and climatic condi-
tions make it difficult to support important habitats along
rivers and streams and elsewhere. Although binational efforts
have been made to protect certain endangered species, such
as the masked bobwhite quail, the desert pupfish, and the
Mexican gray wolf, funding available for addressing depletion
of natural resources and other border environmental problems
is limited.
Increased water consumption, both domestic and indus-
trial, and the border region's largely arid climate have made
maintenance of an adequate water supply one of the most
serious environmental challenges on the border. The prob-
lem is expected to worsen, and many communities face grave
challenges in meeting the rising demand for water that the
projected population growth would bring. Contamination
of groundwater and surface water also is a problem, since
NADB (see The Basis of U.S.-Mexico Border Relations)
states, "About $1.1 billion in needed border infrastructure
project costs can already be identified for the period
1999-2003." The NADB further predicts that, for the peri-
od 200l~ through 2009, project costs for wastewater, water
supply, and municipal solid waste infrastructure will amount
to a minimum of roughly $1 billion.
In poor, unplanned, and generally unincorporated set-
tlements along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, infra-
structure deficiencies are particularly acute. Many of those
settlements, known in the United States as colonias and in
Mexico as asentamientos irregulares (because of their unau-
thorized use of land), have sprung up without formally sanc-
tioned local governance and traditionally have been unable
to gain access to individual or community services. In most
cases, the settlements have developed without water sup-
plies, wastewater treatment facilities, or solid waste collec-
tion systems. Lack of adequate disposal of solid waste often
forces residents to dispose of waste by illegally dumping or
burning it. Those practices contribute to serious environ-
supplies, and have been associated
COLONIAS are residential settlements with health problems. According
supplies often are threatened by agricultural runoff and the mental degradation, such as contamination of groundwater
discharge of raw sewage and indus-
trial pollution into the rivers and
aquifers along the border. With in areas that lack basic services, such as paved to the Organisation for Economic
available sources limited, ensuring roads, drainage, electricity, potable water, Cooperation and Development
that existing water supplies remain and wastewater treatment. In the United (OECD), public health problems,
uncontaminated is one of the key States, colonias are found mostly in New such as hepatitis-B and skin rash-
challenges in ensuring a sustainable Mexico and Texas. The estimated population es, are common in the colonias
future for the border region. of colonias is more than 400,000. (OECD: United States, 81).
~ Indigenous communities and
The availability of environmen-
tal infrastructure in the border region is another prominent
issue. On both sides of the border, growth in many areas
has surpassed basic infrastructure capacity. The problem is
particularly acute along the border in Mexico, where many
communities lack wastewater treatment, transportation sys-
tems are inadequate or nonexistent, and energy demand is
high. Further, resources to support additional infrastructure
development are scarce. Although many communities on
the U.S. side are served by basic infrastructure, much of it
U.S. border tribes are also impacted negatively by various
transborder environmental problems, including air pollu-
tion from off-reservation activity, traffic congestion, extrac-
tion of natural resources, and burning or illegal dumping
of solid and hazardous waste. Several binational rivers and
groundwater basins lie within, near, or under U.S. Indian
reservations; pollution in those waters is a concern to sev-
eral tribal communities. In addition, tribal communities
have expressed concern about limited emergency response
is in need of repair or replacement or requires significant capabilities, lack of training and equipment to respond to
Cornelius Steve. Fragmentation of Natural Resource Management in the Sonoran Desert. The Sonoran Institute. February 1998.
Carrera Julio Principal Investigator. Alternatives for the Use of the Natural Resources of the Region between Santa Elena and Boqwllas, Mexico,
F?™a?Report, CooperativeTAgreement No. CA7029-2-0004 between the Big Bend National Park, Ross State Universrty, and Profauna, AC., 21.
INTRODUCTION
5
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
hazardous waste transportation spills and accidents, and
risks that may be attributable to a lack of information about
the transport of hazardous waste through their reservation
lands.
Some border residents suffer from other public health
problems, such as asthma and high blood lead levels.
Emissions from vehicles, industrial sources, the burning
of trash, and residential heating and dust from unpaved
roads all contribute to poor air quality and threaten the
health of border residents. Moreover, the wastes gener-
ated by industrial activity are also potentially dangerous,
especially when those wastes are disposed of inappropri-
ately in sewer systems, on the ground, or in ravines. Sur-
face-water contamination from industrial pollution and
agricultural chemicals is also a serious problem in many
areas. Another concern is the danger to border residents
posed by exposure to pesticides through pesticide residues
on food and the spraying of pesticides on fields that are
located near homes and schools. There is also growing
concern about the improper use and storage of household
pesticides.
pesticides
- A SKETCH OF
TflHE PROGRESS REPORT
Chapter 2 presents an analysis of the advances made and
challenges faced by the Border XXI Program as they are relat-
ed to the fulfillment of the principal goal and strategies out-
lined in the Framework Document. Chapter 3 highlights the
key accomplishments of the nine Border XXI workgroups
since the programs inception. Using the commitments out-
lined in the Framework Document and the 1997 Indicators
Report as a point of reference, the remaining chapters detail
the principal issues, themes, objectives, achievements, and
future perspectives of the Border XXI workgroups. Finally,
in the addenda to this report, assessments and recommenda-
tions are presented by the U.S. and Mexican federal adviso-
ry committees for the border.
UNITED STATES
BAJA
CALIFORNIA
MEXICO
area tying 100 kilometers, br 62,5 miles, to the north and south of the U.S.-Mexico boundary.
Figure 1-1
INTRODUCTION
6
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
? PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE BORDER:
CHALLENGES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
As stated in the 1996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXIPro-
gram: Framework Document (Framework Docu-
ment), the goal of Border XXI is to "promote sus-
tainable development in the border region by seek-
ing a balance among social and economic factors
and the protection of the environment in border
communities and natural areas" (I.I). Border XXI
seeks to achieve this goal by encouraging activi-
ties that meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs. Although Border XXI has made
notable advances, there have been challenges to
achieving the goal on both the overall program-
matic and the workgroup levels. These challenges
include: (1) lack of recognition of the range of
elements that impact sustainability; (2) limitations
of workgroup activities; and (3) insufficiency of
efforts to engage local-level participants.
The first challenge was to recognize the broad
range of elements that impact sustainability. The
Border XXI framework was established on the
assumption that the organizational struc-
ture that was being created, the strategies
that were to be implemented, and the
workgroup activities that were to be ini-
tiated all would contribute to the pro-
motion of sustainable development. After
the first few years of implementation, it
became apparent to the governments of
both countries that these elements, while
an important part of the equation, would not alone lead to
sustainable development in the border region.
A host of environmental, economic, and social factors
contribute to sustainable development. Therefore, to achieve
that goal requires an integrated, multifaceted approach to
considering those factors and managing resources over the
short, medium, and long terms. The strength of the Bor-
der XXI Program is that it focuses primarily on addressing
the environmental and natural resources elements of sus-
tainable development, as well as social factors as they per-
tain to environmental health. It also provides a point of
Progress
Toward
the Goal and
Implementation
of Key
Strategies
departure for economic and technological considerations by
promoting pollution prevention and the use of clean tech-
nologies. However, the scope of the current program does
not account for all the factors that contribute to
sustainable development in the border region.
One of the challenges of promoting the con-
cept through workgroup activities is' that those
activities address only certain elements of sustain-
able development. Part of the approach to sus-
tainable development implies solving existing prob-
lems. To that end, the workgroups have focused
much of their efforts on analyzing and remediat-
ing environmental, natural resource, and public
health problems resulting from previous unsus-
tainable practices. However, sustainable develop-
ment implies the creation of strategies that both
prevent replication of existing problems in the
future and anticipate entirely new problems. The
relatively narrow scope of the program and the
severity of existing environmental conditions have
limited the success of the workgroups.
While local participation would enable the two
federal governments recognized in the Framework
Document to address sustainable development, the
progress of efforts to engage border com-
munities has been slow. Since the prin-
cipal actors in Border XXI, the federal
and state environmental agencies, have
limited authority and, in many cases, lack
local-level perspective, it was difficult to
promote sustainable development in the
early days of the program. It has been
only recently that the federal governments
have started to join with individual communities to discuss
the concept in terms of local-level priorities and conditions
and to determine how best to work in partnership with local
entities to approach sustainability on a community-by-com-
munity basis.
While the U.S. and Mexican environmental agencies have
limited authority in local land use and planning activities,
they do have a central role in convening local experts and
authorities, facilitating dialogues on issues related to sus-
tainability, and assisting local and state governments in build-
ing technical and human capacity. To those ends, several
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
activities have been initiated recently under the Border XXI
Program to promote sustainable development in the border
region. A summary of those activities follows.
Border Institutes
Held in Rio Rico, Arizona in December 1998, Border Insti-
tute I provided a forum for dialogue on the future of the
border region in terms of economic, demographic, and eco-
logical problems and trends related to the sustainability of
the border region. A summary report of the meeting, tided
The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment: A Road Map to a Sus-
tainable 2020, was published by the Southwest Center for
Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) and is avail-
able on SCERP's web site at www.scerf.org. Border Insti-
tute II, cosponsored by SCERP, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA), and the Border Trade Alliance (BTA),
was held in April 2000 in Rio Rico. The event focused on
identifying actions and policy alternatives for achieving a
healthy environment in border communities. For more infor-
mation, e-mail the Institute for Regional Studies of the Cal-
ifornias at San Diego State University at irsc@mail.sdsu.edu.
Achieving Sustainability Conference
Held in Brownsville, Texas in March 1999, the conference
Achieving Sustainability on the U.S.-Mexico Border under-
scored the commitments of the United States and Mexi-
co to work together to ensure a sustainable future for the
border region, while emphasizing the crucial role of local
stakeholders in the process. The results emphasized that
the true impetus for successful change will come from the
local level and that long-term thinking and binational plan-
ning are needed to address the challenges confronting the
region.
The National Town Meeting for a Sustainable America
Held in Detroit, Michigan in May 1999, the National
Town Meeting focused in part on issues of sustainability
in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Actual examples of
how sustainable development has moved from the draw-
ing board to reality in the border region were highlight-
ed at the event.
Border XXI National Coordinators Meeting Workgroup
Workshops
Held in May 1999 in Ensenada, Baja California, the work-
shops were conducted to familiarize Border XXI workgroup
members with the principles of sustainable development and
to encourage workgroups to adopt concepts of sustainabili-
ty in their projects.
Sustainable Development Community Workshops in Mexico
Mexico's Secretaria de Media Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y
Pesca (SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Natural
Resources, and Fisheries) has conducted a series of sustain-
able development workshops along the border. The work-
shops are designed to provide local planners and city offi-
cials with a forum for building consensus on what sustain-
able development means for their communities. The work-
shops included facilitated breakout discussions and a series
of exercises related to the following themes: (1) Population,
Housing, and Land Use; (2) Urban Development, Infra-
structure, and Equipment; (3) Industry, Transportation, and
Contamination; and (4) Natural Resources, Water, and Soils.
The members of each breakout group identified and quan-
tified the problems most relevant to their communities. After
analyzing the impact on key areas, each group developed a
prognosis for the future of the community, as well as a set
of short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations for the
local, state, and federal governments. The approach helped
participants focus on local-level implications of development
and reinforced their prominent role in shaping the future of
their communities. The results of the workshops were var-
ied. In some cases, workshop findings were included in
municipal development programs and direcdy influenced the
municipal planning process. Other workshops resulted in
the establishment of municipal sustainable development advi-
sory committees made up of local authorities and commu-
nity members.
Border Environment Cooperation Commission/North
American Development Bank Sustainable Development
Criteria
EPA and SEMARNAP recognize the efforts undertaken
by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) and the North American Development Bank
(NADB) in assisting states and local communities, other
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
8
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
public entities, and private investors in the promotion of
sustainable development. The BECC has adopted sus-
tainable development criteria to evaluate infrastructure
projects and has integrated those principles into an exten-
sive public outreach and participation program. As mem-
bers of the BECC board, EPA and SEMARNAP have
worked with the institution to develop the criteria and
other policies that promote the concept. The effort has
helped raise public awareness of the need for developing
environmental infrastructure in a way that will support
sustainable growth.
The Seven Principles of Environmental Stewardship
EPA, SEMARNAP, the BECC, and the U.S.-Mexico Cham-
ber of Commerce (USMCOC) have begun to involve indus-
try as a positive actor in bringing about sustainable devel-
opment through good corporate citizenship. The four organ-
izations agreed to promote voluntary industry adoption of
the Seven Principles of Environmental Stewardship for the 21st
Century (Seven Principles). The section in this chapter on
Public- and Private-Sector Cooperation and Appendix 3 pro-
vide more details about the Seven Principles.
Recommendations
As a result of the experiences gained, the Border XXI par-
ticipants have recognized that much more remains to be
done to promote sustainable development. Various efforts
undertaken, largely in the past two years of the program,
have stimulated dialogues about the issues and have result-
ed in the creation of important partnerships. Future efforts
should be aimed at creating additional partnerships that facil-
itate the development of more comprehensive, local-level
approaches to sustainable development. Those efforts could
benefit from: (1) building on SEMARNAP's approach of
working at the local level by examining local efforts in the
context of binational approaches and the interdependence of
border communities; (2) expanding on the strategies of pub-
lic participation and decentralization to achieve true com-
munity empowerment in decision making; (3) addressing the
relationships among the environment, natural resources, and
human health and such other factors as the economy, edu-
cation, health, land use, municipal management, and ener-
gy use; and (4) employing those factors in the development
and implementation of Border XXI workgroup activities.
» - ~ ~ BORDER XXI
k«* - - STRATEGIES
The Framework Document outlines three strategies for achiev-
ing the Border XXI Program goal: (1) ensuring public involve-
ment; (2) decentralizing environmental management through
state and local capacity building; and (3) improving com-
munication and cooperation among federal, state, and local
government agencies.
ENSURE
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
As stated in the Framework Document, the first strategy
is to "ensure public involvement in the development and
implementation of the Border XXI Program ..." (Chap-
ter II, Page 1 [II. 1]). As was further stated, "Both gov-
ernments aim to engage the creativity, ideas, and energy
of border residents in the evolution and ongoing imple-
mentation of the long-term objectives . . ." (II. 1). Through
the Border XXI Program, the governments of the United
States and Mexico have notably enhanced the binational
public participation experience. The program has pro-
vided a context for both governments to jointly explore
mechanisms for engaging border communities in dialogues
about environmental and natural resource issues. In par-
ticular, for Mexico's federal government, the binational
public participation approach of Border XXI has present-
ed an important model for providing forums for exchang-
ing ideas with Mexico's border residents.
During the first 10 years of the La Paz Agreement, there
was little public participation in the development of border
priorities. When the Integrated Border Environmental Plan
(IBEP) (1992-1994) was implemented, the lack of formal
public input detracted from its public support. IBEP proj-
ects and initiatives were criticized for not reflecting the pri-
orities of border residents. Through those experiences, both
federal governments recognized the importance of public
involvement in the planning and implementation of border
environmental initiatives. A public participation element was
built into the framework of the subsequent phase of border
The Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment in the Border Area was signed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on February 16, 1984.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE QOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
planning, Border XXI, to ensure a role for the public in the
development and implementation of border environmental
programs.
During the development of the Framework Document,
public meetings held in the border region proved to be an
important opportunity for the governments to listen to the
concerns and recommendations of border residents. In the
United States, more than 20 public meetings were held in
border cities during 1995 and 1996. In Mexico, four region-
al and several state-level public meetings were held during
that same time period. In addition, three binational meet-
ings were hosted by the two federal governments, one in
Tijuana, Baja California; one in Nogales, Arizona; and one
in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. The historic meetings pro-
vided the first forums for border residents to engage in dia-
logue with officials of both countries at the same time. The
meetings followed the example set by the BECC in 1995,
when the BECC initiated public board meetings that allowed
public comment and participation and established criteria
that mandated public support for BECC-certified projects.
The meetings were held in two sets. The first set was
held before the development of the draft Framework Docu-
ment, to allow public input even before the two govern-
ments put pen to paper. After the draft document was
published, the second set of public meetings was held to
again solicit input. In addition, the two governments accept-
ed written comments by letter and by e-mail. The U.S.-
Mexico Border XXI Program: Comment and Response Sum-
mary Report (June 1997) was published in response to the
major comments received on the draft Framework Docu-
ment. The comments also were considered in the develop-
ment of the final Framework Document. On the basis of
the public input, three workgroups, the Natural Resources
"Workgroup, the Environmental Information Resources
Workgroup, and the Environmental Health "Workgroup, were
added to the Border XXI Program.
Public Involvement Objectives and Activities
Seven information management, reporting, and communi-
cation objectives for enhancing public participation were out-
lined in the Framework Document (Table 2-1). This section
of the report describes progress made in achieving
those objectives and highlights additional public outreach
activities.
Objectives 1 and 2: Provide Information on Border XXI
Plans, Progress, and Contacts
The nine Border XXI workgroups develop annual imple-
mentation plans for the upcoming year and summaries of
accomplishments during the previous year. Public meetings
Border XXI Public Involvement Objectives
• Make available Border XXI annual implementation plans and progress reports; hold public forums along the border every two years (in con-
junction with the progress report); compile and summarize public input.
• Provide a directory of Border XXI contacts to allow ongoing direct communication between the public and members of the Border XXI work-
groups.
• Form binational subworkgroups to provide regional perspectives to Border XXI workgroups; explore additional channels for public input, such
as existing federal and state border offices. , .
• Engage the assistance of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) (United States) and the Conse/o Consultivo para el Desarrollo Sus-
tentable, RegI6n 1 (CCDS, or Region I Advisory Council for Sustainable Development) (Mexico) in the implementation of Border XXI.
• Improve access to environmental information through: establishment of SEMARNAP public environmental information centers in the border
region; establishment of public computer workstations with Internet access and toll-free Border XXI information telephone lines at EPA border
liaison offices; and development of a binational information and data management directory.
• Support academic institutions, including SCERP and the Fundacidn de Mexico-EstadOs Unidos para la Ciencia (FUMEC, or Mexico-United
States Foundation for Science).
* Publicize the availability of grants to further Border XXI objectives, including the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's North Ameri-
can Fund for Environmental Cooperation.
Ttw Objectives listed atjove may have been paraphrased from the Framework Document. For a more detailed desdrlptiart'lbCth^^e^^l^I^^^T^Ml^ifl
report. The objectives Hescribod in this section may be referred to by number. The numbers are intended for ease of .reference^ only and "clti ndf jmbly ;.'
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
also are held periodically to update border communities on
workgroup objectives and projects. Implementation plans
have been published for 1996, 1997-1998, 1999, and
1999—2000. Copies were made available to stakeholders on
both sides of the border, and the complete documents, or
information about how to obtain them, were posted on the
Border XXI web site at www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder and dis-
tributed through the BECCNet and the U.S.-Mexico Bor-
der listserv. In those documents, as well as others, includ-
ing the fact sheets and compendium of projects, informa-
tion about how to contact Border XXI staff is provided.
Objectives 3 and 4: Develop Additional Channels for Input
to Border XXI
Binational subworkgroups have been created to facilitate
dialogue at the regional and local levels or to address spe-
cialized border-wide topics. Some of the subworkgroups
have been meeting every 6 to 12 months to provide proj-
ect updates, discuss policy and implementation issues, and
engage stakeholders in overall workgroup planning. Appen-
dix 4 provides a list of the binational regional subwork-
groups and border-wide initiatives established under the
Border XXI Program.
Border XXI has sought additional input on border
needs and development through interaction with the fed-
eral advisory councils of both governments, the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) and Mexico's
Consejo Consultivo para el Desarrollo Sustenable, Regidn 1
(CCDS, or Region 1 Advisory Council for Sustainable
Development). In addition to meeting regularly with Bor-
der XXI representatives and publishing annual reports
about the border, the boards have provided EPA and
SEMARNAP with assessments of and recommendations
for Border XXI Program implementation. Those assess-
ments and recommendations are provided in the addenda
to this report.
The GNEB and the CCDS have met twice to address
binational environmental issues and to exchange ideas about
improving environmental education, improving communica-
tion and coordination among all border stakeholders, and
enhancing die participation of state and local and private
entities. The two federal advisory councils formed bina-
tional workgroups to discuss areas of joint interest, includ-
ing: (1) the environment; (2) natural resources; (3) envi-
ronmental infrastructure; and (4) environmental education
and public participation. Although they were not developed
expressly for Border XXI, the specific issues and recom-
mendations identified by die workgroups during the second
joint GNEB/CCDS meeting in Reynosa, Tamaulipas in
November 1998 have helped advance the Border XXI process
by serving as additional input on parallel areas of interest.
Objectives 5 and 7: Improve Access to Information
The public has electronic access to environmental informa-
tion through the following mechanisms: (1) computer work
stations that have been installed in the El Paso, Texas and
San Diego, California border liaison offices (see below) and
(2) the Border EcoWeb, an Internet site that provides links
to existing border information. Border EcoWeb is described
more fully in the chapter on the Environmental Informa-
tion Resources Workgroup. By visiting the border liaison
offices or. dialing a toll-free number (800-334-0741), the
public can obtain documents and speak directly with staff.
Information about EPA grants available to border commu-
nities is provided through the venues listed above, as well as
through seminars and direct mailings. In addition, EPA and
SEMARNAP have produced Border XXI fact sheets in Eng-
lish and Spanish that highlight the objectives and key proj-
ects of each of the nine workgroups. SEMARNAP, in coopr
eration widi the Institute TecnoUgico y de Estudios Superiores
de Monterrey (ITESM, or Monterrey, Nuevo Le6n Institute
of Technology and Advanced Studies), has also published the
Reporte del Estado Ambientaly de los Recursos Naturales en la
Frontera Norte de Mexico (Report on the State of the Envi-
ronment and Natural Resources in the Northern Border of
Mexico). Additional details about the report are provided
in chapters 3 (U.S.-Mexico Border XXI "Workgroups: Key
Accomplishments) and 8 (Environmental Information
Resources Workgroup).
Objective 6: Support Academic Institutions
In cooperation with a wide range of border stakeholders,
SCERP, a consortium of five U.S. universities and four Mex-
ican universities, is dedicated to conducting applied research
to address border environmental problems. SCERP insti-
tutions are involved in a variety of solution-oriented, multi-
disciplinary programs focused on studying transboundary
watersheds and air basins and pollution prevention, and on
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
11
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
completing border community and tribal water infrastruc-
ture assessments. From 1996 to 1999, EPA provided SCERP
with roughly $10.5 million to support those activities. EPA
also has provided $3.5 million since 1997 to the Fundacidn
dc Mfxico-Estados Unidos para la Ciencia (FUMEC, or Mex-
ico-United States Foundation for Science) to: (1) assess
wastewater treatment training and certification programs,
(2) evaluate the Agua Limpia en Casa (Clean Water in
Homes) program in border communities, (3) diagnose the
discharge of industrial wastewater into sewage systems, and
(4) study border area aquifers. Appendix 5 contains addi-
tional details about EPA's resource commitments.
The EPA Border Liaison Offices
The EPA El Paso and San Diego border liaison offices,
established in 1994, serve as
the principal vehicles for pro-
viding outreach on the Bor-
der XXI Program and facili-
tating access to environmen-
tal information in border
communities. In 1995, the
first "satellite" office was
opened in McAllen, Texas to
help address environmental
issues in the lower Rio Grande
Valley. The office was relo-
cated to Brownsville in 1997. The border offices support
a wide range of environmental education activities and serve
as the conduit for public input to Border XXI workgroups
and EPA policy makers. A number of mechanisms have
been initiated through the border offices to enhance involve-
ment and access to information. Appendix 6 contains
detailed information about all activities conducted by the
border offices, including their public information centers,
public meetings, fact sheets, and video.
Environmental Indicators Seminars
SEMARNAP hosted six public meetings in 1997 to discuss
the proposed indicators for each Border XXI workgroup.
The purpose of the meetings was to provide a forum for
border residents, as well as representatives of state and local
governments, the private sector, and academic institutions,
to offer their perspectives on the proposed indicators before
SEMARNAP
Sustainable Development Community Workshops ! i
City , - State ,: -'i;.', jj
Tijuana
Nogales
San Luis R[o Colorado
Ciudad Juarez
Piedras Negras
Linares
Reynosa
Matamoros
Baja California
Sonora
Sonora
Chihuahua
Coahuila
Nuevo Le6n
Tamaulipas
Tamaulipas
the indicators were finalized. In addition, in 1998, after the
1997 United States-Mexico Border Environmental Indicators
Report (1997 Indicators Report) was published, SEMARNAP
organized follow-up workshops in each of the six Mexican
border states.
Sustainable Development Community Workshops
One important mechanism for public participation in the Mex-
ican border municipalities has been the sustain-
able development workshops organized by SEMARNAP that
were mentioned in the first section of this chapter. At the
eight workshops (Table 2-2), representatives of the various com-
munity sectors participated in discussions focused on identify-
ing: (1) the significance and application of sustainable devel-
opment at the local level and (2) the steps necessary to ensure
that community development
advances in a sustainable man-
ner. The workshops provided
a broad framework for public
involvement, one in which
community members partici-
pated in focus groups to gain a
better understanding of urban
environmental problems and
trends, as well as sustainable
solutions.
Plans are underway to
expand the workshops to the binational level in 2000. The
workshops will be presented in at least two pairs of sister
cities as a pilot project for applying the workshop model to
transborder communities.
Challenges and Limitations
Although there was considerable public input into the Frame-
work Document, involving the public in the implementation of
Border XXI remains a challenge. While there are opportuni-
ties for the public to participate, those opportunities are lim-
ited and infrequent. Another drawback is the lack of a well-
defined process for involving the public in workgroup activi-
ties. For example, there is no "feedback" mechanism for the
workgroups or the National Coordinators (EPA and SEMAR-
NAP serve as National Coordinators) to provide responses to
public comments or suggestions. One result is that the pub-
lic has not had input to the annual implementation plans.
Table 2-2
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
12
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Notwithstanding these challenges, progress on involving
the public, while slow to start, has gained momentum, par-
ticularly in the past two years of Border XXI. EPA's bor-
der liaison offices in San Diego and El Paso now serve as
hubs for providing information about border environmental
issues and soliciting feedback from the public. In addition,
the annual National Coordinators meetings and some work-
group meetings, which, in the early years of the program,
were closed, are now open and include public participation
sessions. Moreover, some of the workgroups (Air, Hazardous
and Solid Waste, Environmental Information Resources, and
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance) have held open
sessions to enhance public participation.
Recommendations
Despite the challenges, it is clear that the public should be
more extensively involved in the Border XXI Program. Out-
reach could be made more effective by: (1) providing more
opportunities for public input to Border XXI; (2) revising
the structure of the workgroup and National Coordinators
meetings to include a well-defined public participation com-
ponent; (3) establishing stronger links between the work-
groups and the government representatives in charge of con-
ducting outreach and soliciting input from border commu-
nities; (4) developing partnerships with border state agencies
to strengthen and facilitate public outreach; and (5) expand-
ing and diversifying environmental information activities to
better inform the border public about Border XXI.
DECENTRALIZE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT THROUGH
LOCAL CAPACITY BUILDING
The second strategy of the Border XXI Program, as identi-
fied in the Framework Document, is to "build capacity and
decentralize environmental management in order to augment
the participation of state and local institutions . . ."(II. 1).
The Framework Document further states, "The success of
Border XXI is contingent upon broad-based participation by
federal, state, and local governments, Indian tribes, interna-
tional institutions, academia, nongovernmental organizations,
the private sector, and border citizens and communities"
(1.4). Sustainable development is contingent upon how such
local issues as population growth, availability and cost of
water, and use of natural resources are addressed. Conse-
quently, state, local, and tribal governments should have the
resources, authority, and technical capacity to confront envi-
ronmental, natural resource, and economic issues.
The Border XXI Program has worked to build the capac-
ity of state, local, and tribal governments, as well as that of
other border stakeholders, through: (1) technical assistance and
training; (2) funding; and (3) strengthening of partnerships and
sharing of information. In the United States, emphasis has
been placed on building the capabilities of federally recognized
tribes, especially as they are related to infrastructure needs and
operations. In addition, capacity-building efforts under the Bor-
der XXI Program have extended to such areas as environmen-
tal education, environmental justice, and industry participation.
Building Capacity through Technical Assistance and
Training
The following projects illustrate some of the capacity-build-
ing efforts of the Border XXI Program in the areas of tech-
nical assistance and training. The list below is not com-
prehensive. Additional information about those activities and
others is provided in the individual workgroup chapters.
• Through an amendment to the La Paz Agreement,
the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) for the Improve-
ment of Air Quality in the Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua-
El Paso County, Texas-Dona Ana County, New Mexi-
co Air Basin was created to provide locally-based rec-
ommendations to the Air Workgroup on how to man-
age air quality in the region.
• The Contingency Planning and Emergency Response
"Workgroup has assisted cities along the border in the
development of six sister city contingency plans, which
detail coordinated, standard procedures for responding
to emergencies involving hazardous substances: The
workgroup also has developed the Computer-Aided Man-
agement of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) system in
Spanish and has provided several training opportunities
for Mexican officials.
• The Hazardous and Solid Waste and Cooperative
Enforcement and Compliance workgroups have enhanced
local capacity by developing a range of cooperative train-
ing programs. Their efforts have included training state
and local officials on various aspects of environmental
enforcement and sponsoring compliance seminars for
transporters of maquiladora hazardous waste.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
13
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
• The Environmental Health "Workgroup has helped
increase local capacity by developing several health edu-
cation programs and a health resource data base to main-
tain quality health care and respond to environmental
health emergencies hi the border region.
• The Pollution Prevention Workgroup has an extensive
technical assistance and capacity-building program through
which technical conferences and workshops for industry
have been offered. Manuals targeted on pollution pre-
vention in specific Industries also have been produced.
Building Capacity through Funding
The following projects illustrate some of the capacity-build-
ing efforts of the Border XXI Program that have been
achieved through funding assistance. Additional informa-
tion about these, as well as other, funding activities is pro-
vided in the individual workgroup chapters.
Building Capacity through BECC/NADB Assistance
Both governments recognize and support the capacity-
building efforts of the BECC and the NADB to incor-
porate local decision makers in the development of proj-
ects. In cooperation with the Water "Workgroup, the BECC
has provided substantial tech-
nical assistance related to the
development and funding of
water, wastewater, and solid
waste projects. The efforts
are aided by BECC's Project
Development Assistance Pro-
gram (PDAP), created with
$20 million of EPA grant
funds that can be used only
for water and wastewater
projects. Through this pro-
gram, the BECC has
approved $15.6 million to assist 79 communities. Solid
waste assistance, using the BECC's operating funds,
amounted to more than $1 million. The NADB has
approved $11.6 million to assist 60 communities through
the Institutional Development Cooperation Program
(IDP). Appendix 5 contains additional details about EPA's
resource commitments. (The figures cited above are cur-
rent as of February 2000.)
PAFN Assistance to Mexican
Border States and Municipalities
State Municipalities Percent
Baja California
Chihuahua
Coahuila
Nuevo Leon
Sonora
Tamaulipas
Total
Mexicali, Tijuana
Ciudad Juarez
Ciudad Acufia, Piedras Negras
" ' "-. '.. ",.;
San Luis Rio Colorado, Nogales
Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, Matamoros
11.7%
25.5%
20.4%
11.7%
14.3%
16.4%
10O.O%
- Not applicable : - |
Total Funding: More than US$4.6 million ($43,6 million pesps) j :
Building Capacity of States and Municipalities in Mexico
In accordance with the framework of the Border XXI Pro-
gram, the World Banks Programa Ambiental Frontera Norte de
Mexico (PAFN, or Environmental Program for the Northern
Border of Mexico) has helped strengthen the capacity of the
six Mexican border states and 10 of the municipalities in those
states. From 1994 to 1999, the PAFN provided almost $43.6
million pesos (more than US$4.6 million) in equipment and
other needed resources and assistance to the border states and
municipalities. Following are some of the more notable
achievements of the program:
• The PAFN has helped increase local-level capacity to
evaluate pollution control by supporting basic training in
such areas as: (1) application of methodologies and diag-
nostic techniques; (2) development of environmental meas-
urements; (3) improvement of environmental quality; and
(4) conservation and management of natural resources.
• The PAFN has helped increase the ability to process
information related to environmental activities and pro-
grams. As a result, the time required to respond to envi-
ronmentally related incidents has been reduced. In addi-
tion, communication among the sectors involved regard-
ing environmental matters has improved significantly.
• The PAFN has helped
establish and equip laborato-
ries in Tamaulipas and
Coahuila with environmental
monitoring units. In a simi-
lar effort, the program has
helped purchase and install
units in Chihuahua, Baja Cal-
ifornia, and Nuevo Le6n.
Although much remains
to be done, the PAFN, in its
few years of operation, has
helped link the efforts and
resources of various levels of government and has proven
to be an effective mechanism for building the capacity
of Mexico's northern border states and municipalities.
Appendix 7 contains additional details about Mexico's
resource commitments.
Building Capacity of Border Communities
The Border XXI Program has established a U.S.-Mexico Com-
Table 2-3
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
14
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
munity Grants Program to build capacity for environmental
and natural resource protection at the local level. The pro-
gram has helped build capacity by empowering communities
to develop area-specific solutions to their environmental prob-
lems and local environmental education efforts. The border
communities were notified of grant opportunities through
various media. EPA has awarded a total of 37 border com-
munity grants in three separate grant cycles (1995, 1997, and
2000), each worth between $25,000 and $40,000. Appen-
dix 8 provides a summary of the grants awarded in 1995
and 1997, as well as additional information about capacity
building in border communities.
EPA also has provided grant funding to U.S. states to
help build capacity in border communities and industry. The
states have helped carry out much of the Border XXI work
through projects and programs on pollution prevention, water
conservation, and air quality monitoring.
Building Capacity through Strengthening of Partnerships
and Sharing of Information
The following projects illustrate some of the capacity-build-
ing efforts of the Border XXI Program that have been achieved
through partnerships and information sharing. Some of these
efforts have been directed toward nongovernmental institu-
tions in the border region. Additional information about these
and other activities is provided in the workgroup chapters.
Building Capacity through Environmental Education
The Environmental Information Resources Workgroup and the
EPA border liaison offices have supported capacity building in
the border region through the creation and sponsorship of sev-
eral environmental education initiatives. These initiatives
include: (1) a new border-wide environmental education strat-
egy and five binational cooperative agreements to create a num-
ber of environmental education activities along the border
region; (2) two guides on environmental education in the bor-
der area; (3) a council of educators; and (4) five environmen-
tal education binational conferences. Two of the cooperative
agreements are designed to work with tribal communities in
identifying their environmental education needs. Under the
agreements, a binational curriculum will be created that will
be translated into English, Spanish, and Kumeyaay/Kumiai.
Building Capacity through Industry and Private Sector
Partnerships
The coordinated efforts of the border liaison offices and the
Pollution Prevention and Cooperative Enforcement and
Compliance workgroups have resulted in the successful imple-
mentation of several capacity-building activities, including:
(1) compliance assistance programs through training and edu-
cation; (2) site assessment visits; (3) sector-specific pollution
prevention manuals; and (4) voluntary compliance programs,
such as EPA's Self Disclosure Policy. These activities have
been effective tools for increasing the ability of the indus-
trial sector to become a leader in addressing the environ-
ment as an integral part of its operations. The workgroup
chapters provide additional details about capacity-building
efforts focused on the industrial and private sectors.
Building Capacity of Border Tribes
EPA has made a concerted effort to more effectively engage
U.S. border tribes in the Border XXI Program. In addition
to acknowledging the important environmental and natural
resource conservation role of the border tribes in the Coor-
dination Principles between the Border XXI National Coordi-
nators and the U.S. and Mexican Border States and U.S. Tribes
for the Border XXI Program (Coordination Principles) (described
below and in Appendix 8), EPA also has provided several
grants to the tribes to build capacity, with a special empha-
sis on training. Other EPA activities that promote tribal
capacity have included: encouraging participation of tribes in
subworkgroups, conducting outreach, holding open houses,
hiring a tribal coordinator, and sponsoring a conference for
tribes. Appendix 9 provides detailed information about spe-
cific EPA activities that focus on tribes in the border region.
Environmental Justice in the U.S. Border Area
The goal of environmental justice is to promote fair treat-
ment and equal protection of all people, regardless of their
race, culture, or income, so that they can live in safe, healthy,
and clean communities. Many challenges faced by border
communities fall within the scope of environmental justice,
which deals with the disproportionate impact of environ-
mental burdens on low-income communities and commu-
nities of color. EPA strives to ensure environmental fairness
by implementing the requirements of President Clintons
Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice and by
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
15
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
incorporating the common objectives of the Border XXI Pro-
gram into agency operations. Both endeavors are focused
on promoting sustainable development, ensuring public par-
ticipation and interagency cooperation, protecting public
health, achieving environmental fairness, and reducing dis-
proportionate impact in high-risk communities. The Bor-
der XXI Program is committed further to building capacity
and to decentralizing environmental management.
To address environmental justice concerns in border com-
munities, EPA uses a four-pronged approach, which consists
of the following:
• Empower communities and build local capacity to par-
ticipate in environmental decision making and binational
activities. Appendix 8 contains additional information about
border community empowerment and capacity building.
• Ensure EPA's responsiveness to environmental justice
concerns, including development of a strategy to inte-
grate environmental justice into all aspects of the Bor-
der XXI Program and other binational activities.
* Assume a leadership role in working with federal,
state, and tribal agencies to encourage integration of
environmental justice into their border programs.
• Reduce risk, exposure, and other adverse environ-
mental impacts in the border region by ensuring com-
pliance with environmental laws and the cleanup of nat-
ural resources.
tralizing environmental management. The efforts to decen-
tralize that have been initiated have been concentrated prima-
rily at the state level, rather than the local government level.
Mexico's Decentralization Process
Although the SEMARNAP-initiated process of decentraliz-
ing environmental management in the six border states in
Mexico attained some achievements, that main objective has
not been met. One of the main obstacles to broader suc-
cess has been that only a few limited functions have been
placed under state authority, and those without provision of
the necessary resources to carry them out. That obstacle, as
well as others, is discussed below.
The border states, however, have responded to decen-
tralization more rapidly and effectively than other regions of
Mexico. For example, diey were the first to sign decentral-
ization framework agreements, which established the basis for
furdier specific agreements to transfer SEMARNAP-led func-
tions to the states and municipalities. It is worth mention-
ing that, among the six border states, Tamaulipas and Coahuila
are widely recognized for their environmental laboratories,
which strengthen the environmental management capacity of
the two states.
From 1995 to 1999, 163 decentralization agreements
were signed between SEMARNAP and die Mexican border
states (Table 2-4).
Appendix 10 contains more information about EPA's envi-
ronmental justice activities in the border region.
Challenges and Limitations
Efforts of the Border XXI Program to Promote
Decentralization
The Border XXI Program has not been able to fully decen-
tralize environmental management and has not fully creat-
ed appropriate mechanisms for strengthening state, local, and
tribal governments. Although both federal governments have
supported the involvement of state and local decision mak-
ers in project development through various efforts, involve-
ment at those levels has been limited. Further, compared
with the Mexican border states, the U.S. states were pro-
vided more funds to implement border programs.
In addition, the efforts of the nine workgroups have focused
primarily on building capacity and not so heavily on decen-
SEMARNAP
Decentralization Agreements
with Mexican Border States (1995-1999)
Baja California
Sonora
, Chihuahua ,
Nuevo Leon
Coahuila
Tamaulipas
22
42
• " ' •• ' 17 • ' .' '•• '-..'
, ' ' • 23 ' ' :
. . " 21 ---•'• ---;
38
Table 2-4
The four main obstacles to implementing decentralization
activities in Mexico are described below.
• As previously discussed, the first obstacle has been
that both SEMARNAP and the states have lacked suf-
ficient financial resources to implement the decentral-
ization process. The state governments have been pre-
PROQRESS TOWARD THE QOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
16
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
eluded by this financial constraint from assuming fed-
eral functions and their associated additional expenses.
In response to this concern, foreign resources are being
sought to further support the decentralization process,
through the creation of environmental funds in each of
the states.
* The legal framework has presented another key obsta-
cle, since some of the regulations that govern SEMAR-
NAP do not account for decentralization at the state
and municipal levels. This circumstance has hindered
the timely transfer of responsibility for functions tradi-
tionally provided by the secretariat.
• The lack of institutional capacity, both centrally and
locally, has been another key obstacle. Some efforts
currently are underway to strengthen the environmental
institutional capacity at the state and municipal levels
through the creation of the Comisiones Mixtas para la
Descentralizacion (Mixed Commissions for Decentral-
ization). The commissions are entities made up of
federal, state, and public representatives, whose role it
is to: (1) implement what has been agreed upon in
the framework agreements and other specific agree-
ments; (2) publish the Agenda Municipal para la
Gestidn Ambiental (Municipal Agenda for Environ-
mental Management), an instrument that supports
municipal environmental management planning; and
(3) integrate decentralization with new forms of region-
al planning.
• Last, the offer of decentralization has been met with
different degrees of resistance by the states. As men-
tioned above, the principal reason the states have shunned
decentralization is the lack of resources available to them
to support the process. The resistance of the states has
been reinforced further by the resistance of some areas
within SEMARNAP and its federal delegations to trans-
fer authority for functions to the states. As a result of
this twofold resistance, the scope of the decentralization
process has been limited.
Recommendations
Both governments recognize that much more should be done
to strengthen the capacity of state, local, and tribal govern-
ments and to decentralize environmental management. Future
efforts will focus on (1) facilitating further decentralization
through the next border program, including increasing author-
ity and resources at the state and local levels, particularly in
Mexico; (2) enabling the full participation of all border states
and U.S. tribes in the Border XXI program; (3) continuing
to implement and expand the environmental capacity-build-
ing program for Mexican states and municipalities under
PAFN; and (4) continuing to build state- and local-level
capacity as it is related to the promotion of sustainable devel-
opment through training and education.
ENSURE INTERAGENCY
COOPERATION
The third strategy of the Border XXI Program, as identified
in the Framework Document, is to "ensure interagency coop-
eration to maximize available resources and avoid duplica-
tive efforts on the part of government and other organiza-
tions, and reduce the burden that coordination with multi-
ple entities places on border communities" (II. 1). This strat-
egy was developed as a direct response to public criticism
that federal environment and health activities along the bor-
der were implemented in an uncoordinated fashion, often
resulting in a duplication of efforts.
Federal-to-Federal Cooperation
The Border XXI Program has served as a functional frame-
work for binational cooperation, assisted by the participation
of a number of federal and state agencies and U.S. tribal gov-
ernments. As discussed in Chapter 1, the participating fed-
eral agencies in the Border XXI Program are EPA, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) in the United States
and SEMARNAP, the Secretaria de Desarrollo Social (SEDES-
OL, or Secretariat of Social Development), and the Secretaria
de Salud (SSA, or Secretariat of Health) in Mexico. EPA and
SEMARNAP, the National Coordinators, have joint respon-
sibility for, and oversight of; program implementation.
The emphasis on binational interagency coordination
through Border XXI has helped encourage involvement of a
full range of other federal agencies, each participating on a
project-by-project basis. The Border XXI Program also is
linked to other North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA)-related institutions such as the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the BECC, the NADB,
and the International Boundary and Water Commission
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
17
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
(IBWC). The BECC, the NADB, and the IBWC have key
roles in the policy development and infrastructure con-
struction efforts coordinated by the Water "Workgroup. The
BECC and the NADB also have supported solid waste infra-
structure projects at the local level.
State, Local, and Tribal Cooperation
In addition to extensive federal-to-federal cooperation, inter-
governmental coordination and cooperation with border
states and U.S. tribes has been a key achievement of the
Border XXI Program. The partnership role that those enti-
ties play was formalized recently with the signing of the
Coordination Principles. At the National Coordinators Meet-
ing in Ensenada in May 1999, all 10 border state envi-
ronmental agencies, EPA, and SEMARNAP signed the doc-
ument. Present at the special session during which the doc-
ument was signed were representatives of 14 U.S. federally
recognized border tribes. The Coordination Principles pro-
vide a framework for collaboration among partners to estab-
lish objectives, identify activities, and secure the necessary
resources to meet those objectives. In addition, they rec-
ognize the sovereignty of U.S. border tribes, as well as the
long tradition of stewardship of "all Indian communities in
the border area." The Coordination Principles are intended
to strengthen partnerships to further enhance the ability of
border state agencies and tribes to plan an integral role in
the Border XXI Program, including the development of the
next border plan. Appendix 11 contains the text of the
Coordination Principles.
In 1997, EPA began convening annual planning retreats
with Arizona and California state agencies working in the
border region. The goals of the retreats are to formalize
coordination principles and engage states and tribes in the
decision-making processes related to workgroup activities and
broad border environmental policies. In 1999, Arizona tribes
participated in the retreat. Several tribes also participated
in the retreat in California in March 2000.
Although participation has been limited, local govern-
ments have played a role in the Border XXI Program. For
example, local governments have been involved in the devel-
opment of binational sister city contingency and emergency
plans (See the chapter on Contingency Planning and Emer-
gency Response) and recommendations for binational air pol-
lution abatement strategies in specific areas, such as the El
Paso County-Ciudad Juarez-Dona Ana County air basin and
the San Diego County-Tijuana region.
Some EPA-supported state initiatives in the border region
currently are not part of the Border XXI Program. For
example, work being done on pesticide use and exposure is
not explicidy covered by any Border XXI Workgroup. How-
ever, with EPA funding, the four U.S. border states spon-
sored several information exchange conferences for U.S. and
Mexican officials to improve working relationship with agen-
cies responsible for pesticide regulations in Mexico. In the
next phase of border planning, pesticides issues may receive
more focused attention. The states play a critical role in
helping to address border environmental and natural resource
management issues, and EPA encourages continued support
for those cooperative efforts.
Cross-Workgroup Cooperation
As each of the Border XXI workgroups' programs developed,
it became apparent that many of the individual programs
could benefit from collaborative interaction. Such was espe-
cially the case for the Environmental Health Workgroup,
which found synergistic opportunities with the Air, Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste, Environmental Information
Resources, and Water workgroups. Since many of the health
problems occurring along the border are the result of water-
or air-based vectors, it became evident that measured changes
in air and water quality were an ideal test-bed for measur-
ing changes in health status. From Mexico, die SSA pre-
sented projects it had implemented, including the Clean
Water in Homes program. (Appendix 12 provides more infor-
mation about the program.)
As a result of joint efforts between the Air and Envi-
ronmental Health workgroups, preliminary air measurements
in El Paso made by EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment (ORD), in collaboration with the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), concluded
that a children's pulmonary health study would be feasible.
The Air and Environmental Health workgroups continue to
work with local agencies to design a study in El Paso to fur-
ther analyze the problem.
As a result of joint efforts between the Water and Envi-
ronmental Health workgroups, several projects are underway
to identify key water bodies for which joint studies could
be developed. Projects could be implemented in Nuevo Lare-
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
18
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
do, Nuevo Leon; Reynosa; El Paso; and Del Rio as a result
of those efforts. In addition, Mexico's SSA presented an epi-
demiological surveillance program for Ciudad Juarez, as rec-
ommended in the JAC's strategic plan.
Coordination between the Cooperative Enforcement and
Compliance Workgroup and the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Workgroup has resulted in the streamlining of both work-
groups. Joint subworkgroup meetings are held regularly, and
information is exchanged on case-specific investigations relat-
ed to the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes
between the United States and Mexico. The two workgroups
also participate in joint training sessions on regulations relat-
ed to illegal shipments of hazardous waste, as well as import
and export regulations governing hazardous waste and mate-
rials. In addition, they train hazardous waste inspectors.
Public- and Private-Sector Cooperation
Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies involved in the Bor-
der XXI Program have been working to cultivate .strong pub-
lic-private partnerships with industry.
In March 1999, EPA and the Procuraduria Federal de
Proteccidn alAmbiente (PROFEPA, or Mexico's Federal Attor-
ney General for Environmental Protection) sponsored the
conference Environmental Auditing and Pollution Preven-
tion in the Maquiladora Industry in San Francisco, Califor-
nia for maquiladora parent companies and trade associations.
The purpose of the conference was to increase awareness of
environmental stewardship and encourage corporate execu-
tives to augment their roles as environmental stewards.
In 1999, EPA and SEMARNAP signed the Seven Prin-
ciples with the USMCOC and the BECC. The Seven Prin-
ciples advance the notion of corporate environmental stew-
ardship and seek to promote goals of sustainable develop-
ment through the enhancement of environmental compli-
ance and the implementation of economically efficient and
effective environmental measures. The principles of corpo-
rate environmental stewardship are:
• Management Commitment
• Compliance Assurance and Pollution Prevention
• Enablement of Systems
• Measurement of Continuous Improvement
• Public Accountability
• Industry Leadership
• Sustainable Community Development
In the coming years, EPA, SEMARNAP, and the USM-
COC will work to promote voluntary implementation of the
Seven Principles by industry and affiliate associations through-
out the United States and Mexico, consistent with the domes-
tic laws of each country. A comprehensive strategy for pro-
moting the effort currently is being developed. Appendix 3
contains the complete text of the Seven Principles.
Challenges and Limitations
The Border XXI Program has faced some challenges and crit-
icisms related to ensuring interagency cooperation. One of
the most notable constraints affecting achievement of the
goal of sustainable development is that the Border XXI Pro-
gram does not include all federal agencies that are involved
in border work. Some of the federal agencies that do not
participate under the current plan are the U.S. Departments
and Mexican Secretariats of Agriculture, Energy, Transporta-
tion, Housing, Commerce, and Treasury.
In addition, while the program is linked to other NAFTA-
related institutions, it coordinates more closely with some
institutions than it does with others. A notable gap exists
from the lack of full and consistent coordination and col-
laboration with the CEC. Although the scope and types of
efforts in which the CEC participates often differ from those
of Border XXI, closer communication and coordination
between the two entities could result in more complemen-
tary efforts. To date, only a few activities with the EPA bor-
der liaison offices and with the Air and Water workgroups
have been carried out in partnership with the CEC.
The Border XXI Program has been criticized for having
limited state, local, and tribal government representation in
the workgroups. A result of this shortcoming is that non-
federal entities, particularly at the local level, were not wide-
ly included in the development of indicators for the border
region. While Border XXI is progressing to include more
non-federal participants, the challenge of fully incorporating
all border governments into the workgroups remains.
Regarding the individual border-wide workgroups, Bor-
der XXI has been criticized for not having state-led work-
groups. Even though the current structure of Border XXI
does not lend itself to workgroup leadership by the states,
the two federal governments have not done enough to inves-
tigate the changes that would enable representatives of the
states to chair workgroups.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
19
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Recommendations
As a result of the efforts and experiences gained, both gov-
ernments recognize that much more remains to be done to
facilitate further binational cooperation at all levels. The
following efforts and changes could be considered in the
next border program: (1) either refine the program mission
for the next phase of border cooperation so that it better
reflects the jurisdictions of the environmental agencies in
both countries (that is, so that it is focused only on those
activities over which the environmental and health agencies
have influence) or expand the scope of the border program
to include other federal agencies in the next phase of the
border program; (2) continue to strengthen coordination
efforts with border states and tribes; (3) initiate mechanisms
that will involve local government more fully; (4) continue
efforts to promote cross-linkages between workgroups; (5)
coordinate more closely with other NAFTA-related institu-
tions and industry; and (6) involve states, tribes, and local
governments in the development, quantification, and evalu-
ation of environmental indicators.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY STRATEGIES
20
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
This chapter highlights the major accomplishments of the
nine Border XXI workgroups and provides a brief overview
of the program efforts from 1996 to 2000 to preserve the
border environment and the health of border res-
idents and to protect the region's natural resources.
Although much work remains, the Border XXI
Program has made great strides in preventing fur-
ther environmental deterioration through projects
that have fostered improvements in environmen-
tal stewardship. This binational cooperation has
brought about significant improvements in both
the continuity and the uniformity of natural
ecosystem and biodiversity preservation.
Following are summaries of some of the most
relevant accomplishments of each workgroup.
Workgroups:
AIR
4
The Border XXI Air Workgroup has advanced
knowledge about air quality conditions in prin-
cipal border sister cities. The workgroup also
has coordinated with other agencies to help mon-
itor, prevent, and control air pollution. In addi-
tion, progress has been made in Mexico on iden-
tifying significant contamination sources
through the establishment of the Emis-
sion Inventory Development Program.
The Air Workgroup has initiated and
conducted binational air program activi-
ties in the sister cities of San Diego Coun-
ty, California-Tijuana, Baja California;
Imperial County, California-Mexicali,
Baja California; Nogales, Arizona-
Nogales, Sonora; Douglas, Arizona-Agua Prieta, Sonora; and
El Paso County, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua-Dona Ana
County, New Mexico. Recent efforts have concentrated on
establishing and operating air quality monitoring networks
in Tijuana and Mexicali, similar to those operating in San
Diego County, Imperial County, and El Paso County-Ciu-
dad Juarez-Dofia Ana County.
In May 1996, the Joint Advisory Committee QAC) for
the Improvement of Air Quality in the El Paso County-Ciu-
dad Juarez-Dona Ana County Air Basin was created to pro-
Accomplishments
vide locally-based recommendations to the Air Workgroup
on how to manage air quality in the region. In May 1999,
the JAC completed a strategic plan that includes 26 priori-
ties for improving air quality.
Other accomplishments of the Air Workgroup
include the development of (1) the Ciudad Juarez
Air Quality Management Program 1998-2002 (pub-
lished in May 1998) and (2) the Program to Improve
Air Quality in Mexicali 2000-2005 (published in
February 2000). Both programs were developed
with the participation of various community sec-
tors. It is expected that the Air Quality Program
for Tijuana will be released in 2000.
The Air Workgroup, in collaboration with the
Western Governors' Association (WGA), initiated
the Emissions Inventory Development Program to
strengthen Mexico's capacity for completing this
important air quality planning activity. The cor-
nerstone of the program has been die develop-
ment of a series of 10 guidance manuals diat the
Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE, or National
Institute of Ecology) will use as a reference in the
development of its revised emissions inventory pro-
gram. Currendy, five manuals have been com-
pleted in both Spanish and English, while,
at the time this report was prepared, com-
pletion of the other five was expected in
2000. INE, in conjunction with the
WGA, selected Mexicali as the first city
to produce an emissions inventory under
the new program. The pilot program for
Mexicali began in 1997. The second pilot
program for Tijuana began in 1999. Its
completion is expected by the end of 2000.
The U.S.-Mexico Centra de Informacidn sobre Contami-
nacidn de Aire (CICA, or Border Information Center on Air
Pollution) has been a strong supporter of die workgroup's
activities and has provided technical assistance in evaluating
air pollution conditions along the border.
In addition, in the spirit of the Border XXI Program,
the workgroup formed two specialized subworkgroups to
address issues related to (1) energy and (2) vehicle conges-
tion at border crossings.
The subsections of this chapter are listed in alphabetical order by workgroup name. In the translation of this report, the subsections of this chapter
appear in alphabetical order by workgroup name in Spanish.
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDEH XXI WORKGROUPS: KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The U.S.-Mexico Joint Contingency Plan for responding to
hazardous material leaks or spills along the border was mod-
ified in June 1999 to reflect the institutional and legislative
changes that have occurred in both countries. The modi-
fied plan changed the binational notification system to
ensure timely notification of the appropriate counterpart
officials when a chemical accident occurs in the border
region.
The Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Oper-
ations (CAMEO) system was translated into Spanish for use
in the border region. CAMEO is a software system that
facilitates chemical emergency response and planning.
In addition, six contingency plans were signed for the
following sister city pairs: Eagle Pass, Texas-Piedras Negras,
Coahuila; Brownsville, Texas-Matamoros, Tamaulipas; Lare-
do, Texas-Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; San Luis, Arizona-San
Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora; McAllen, Texas-Reynosa,
Tamaulipas; and Nogales, Arizona-Nogales, Sonora. The
plans address international coordination requirements for
responding to emergencies involving hazardous substances.
'- COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT
AND COMPLIANCE
The Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance "Workgroup
formed five regional subworkgroups to strengthen enforce-
ment and compliance strategies and improve coordination
among local, state, and federal agencies on both sides of the
border. The first three subworkgroups were established for
Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua; California and Baja
California; and Arizona and Sonora. In 1998, two addi-
tional subworkgroups were established for Coahuila and Texas
and Nuevo Le6n, Tamaulipas, and Texas.
The regional subworkgroups have cooperated binational-
ly on various investigations, joint inspections, and other spe-
cific incidents. Such binational cooperation occurred on the
following occasions: (1) an incident involving the import to
Mexico of a material identified as enhanced soil; (2) a case
involving Alco Pacffico of Mexico; and (3) an incident involv-
ing the import to Mexico of empty drums that formerly con-
tained hazardous materials or waste. In addition, the exchange
of information has facilitated the detection of illegal ship-
ments to and from the United States and Mexico.
The workgroup has supported a capacity-building train-
ing program designed to educate border personnel on envi-
ronmental enforcement programs. Federal, state, and local
environmental officials from Mexico and the United States
have participated in the program, along with customs per-
sonnel from both countries. As a result, hundreds of indi-
viduals have been trained on the legal aspects related to cross-
border transportation of hazardous substances, chemicals, and
pesticides and the illegal commerce in ozone-depleting sub-
stances and flora and fauna.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mex-
ico's Procuradurta. Federal de Proteccidn al Ambiente (PRO-
FEPA, or Federal Attorney General for Environmental Pro-
tection), and the border states have collaborated to promote
environmental auditing. Since its inception, Mexico's Nation-
al Environmental Audit Program has enlisted more than
1,345 businesses, 395 of which are located in Mexico's north-
ern border states and 81 of which represent the maquilado-
m industry. In addition, PROFEPA issued 412 Clean Indus-
try Certificates from 1997 to 1999. The certificates were
issued to those companies that exhibited timely compliance
with action plans established as a result of environmental
audits. Each certificate is valid for two years and is renew-
able for another two-year period.
EPA has worked with PROFEPA to promote environ-
mental auditing efforts among the U.S. parent companies of
maquiladoras. For example, EPA issued letters to parent
companies encouraging them to take part in PROFEPA's
environmental audit program. EPA also has distributed an
informative video that presents environmental auditing as a
tool for ensuring compliance and identifying pollution pre-
vention opportunities. Acknowledging the globalization of
today's industries, EPA and PROFEPA held a conference for
twin plants in March 1999 to promote increased levels of
environmental compliance and pollution reduction.
k— — ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
Some adverse health effects seen along the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der appear to be caused by contamination of air, water, and
soil by chemical and biological pollutants. The Environ-
mental Health "Workgroup has established numerous activ-
ities to address these issues and improve the quality of life
on the border. Highlights of those activities include:
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI WORKGROUPS: KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
22
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The Lower Rio Grande Valley Cross-Border Air Pol-
lution Project found that transboundary transportation
of emissions originating in Mexico did not appear to cause
noticeable deterioration of air quality on the U.S. side of
the lower Rio Grande Valley border.
As part of the Pediatric Lead Exposure Initiative, a lab-
oratory for blood lead analysis was established at the Hospital
Municipalde Tijuana (Tijuana Municipal Hospital). Local per-
sonnel and community members were trained to recognize
symptoms of lead poisoning. As a result, not only are chil-
dren widi elevated blood lead levels receiving care, but also the
sources of the lead exposure are being determined. A sepa-
rate Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-National Cen-
ter for Environmental Health study in the Arizona-Sonora bor-
der region in March 1998 identified no major sites of con-
cern on the basis of the sample population.
The Advanced Training Project is part of a bination-
al program to strengthen environmental health capabilities
of individuals and institutions in the areas of environmen-
tal and occupational toxicology, epidemiology, engineering,
and risk communication in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
To date, four scholarships have been awarded to public health
workers to obtain masters degrees in environmental epi-
demiology, and several short courses covering epidemiologi-
cal themes have been conducted.
The Environmental Health Alert and Communication
Project facilitates access to quality health and environmen-
tal information for border communities, health providers,
and health officials. In collaboration with the four U.S.
border states, the Environmental Health Yellow Pages, a
resource tool to help identify agencies responsible for spe-
cific environmental health issues, have been compiled.
The Retrospective Study on Pediatric Asthma and Air
Quality focused on children between the ages of 1 and 17
residing in the Paso del Norte airshed who visited an emer-
gency room for asthma treatment. The study showed that
there was a positive correlation between levels of particulate
matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10) and the
incidence of asthma.
The Toxicology Center Development Project helps
strengthen the ability of Mexican regional, state, and local tox-
icology centers to respond to environmental emergencies and
the clinical needs of poisoned patients. The project also helps
improve the capacity of environmental health officials to iden-
tify potentially hazardous places and industries. To date, tox-
icology centers have been established in Hermosillo, Sonora
and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. A third center is being estab-
lished in Reynosa, Tamaulipas.
Identifying priorities for the Environmental Health Work-
group and cross-referencing those priorities with those of other
workgroups, particularly those for Water, Air, Hazardous and
Solid Waste, and Environmental Information Resources, has
allowed Border XXI to ensure that the protection of human
health remains the most important goal of the program.
As an example, the Environmental Health Workgroup,
togedier with the Water Workgroup, developed the pilot Agua
Limpia en Casa (Clean Water in Homes) program, in some
border communities in Chihuahua and Sonora. The objec-
tive was to improve the health conditions of residents of small,
impoverished communities that lack basic infrastructure. Such
communities often have a high infant mortality rate (rates for
children under one year) because of gastroenteritis.
Major accomplishments of the program include:
• A decrease (13.2 percent) in enteric diseases
• An increase (13 percent) in water purification
awareness
• An increase (between 3.5 and 20 percent) in water
purification practices
• An increase (between 3 and 5 percent) in vegetable
disinfection
The external assessment conducted by the Fundacion de
Mtxico-Estados Unidos para la Ciencia (FUMEC, or Mexico-
United States Foundation for Science) concurred with the
program by noting the significant decrease in gastrointesti-
nal diseases in the community.
The program has been highly successful, achieving good
results with few resources. The current plan is to extend the
program to both sides of the border on a permanent basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL -
,_ _, INFORMATION RESOURCES ;
With respect to environmental information, the Border XXI
Program has made significant progress in developing infor-
mation systems to facilitate a deeper understanding of the
environment. The systems also have helped promote bet-
ter-informed public participation.
Following is an overview of several projects the Environ-
mental Information Resources Workgroup has implemented.
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI WORKGROUPS: KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
23
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The border environmental indicators are used to meas-
ure environmental performance and provide a basis for assess-
ing both the progress of Border XXI activities and their
impacts on the environment. The indicators also are used
to help inform the public about conditions of and pressures
on the environment and natural resources and the effective-
ness of actions taken to address those concerns. The 1997
United States-Mexico Environmental Indicators Report (1997
Indicators Report) was developed with input from the public.
An update of the information published in that report is pro-
vided in the individual workgroup chapters of this document.
The Border EcoX^b is an environmental inventory being
developed for use on the Internet. The multiyear project was
undertaken in response to the growing demand for environ-
mental information ha the border communities. The Border
EcoWeb includes environmental information, project lists,
and points of contact for environmental border activities.
The Reports del Estado Ambiental y de los Recursos
Naturales en la. Frontera Norte de Mexico (Report on the
State of the Environment and Natural Resources in die
Northern Border of Mexico) describes the economic, social,
demographic, natural, environmental, and institutional con-
ditions in Mexico's northern border region. The report also
establishes an objective baseline of scientific information relat-
ed to these parameters.
A geographic information system (GIS), developed
cooperatively between Mexico's Instituto National de Estadis-
tica, Geografia, e Informdtica (INEGI, or National Institute
of Statistics, Geography, and Information) and the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS), produces aerial photographs and spe-
cialized maps of the border region. To date, aerial coverage
of the U.S. border region has been completed, while aerial
coverage of regions in Mexico is still underway. A bina-
tional digital map, as well as a variety of GIS applications,
will be developed on the basis of the results of the project.
1 HAZARDOUS AND
SOLID WASTE
EPA and Mexico's INE operated the Hazardous Waste Track-
ing System (HAZTRAKS) for several years. In 1998, HAZ-
TRAKS was replaced in Mexico with INE's version of a haz-
ardous waste tracking system, known as Sistema de Rastreo
de Residuos Peligrosos (SIRREP). The use of both systems
has considerably improved the ability to monitor trans-
boundary hazardous waste shipments in the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der region. It is worth noting that a 1999 study conduct-
ed by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commis-
sion (TNRCC) determined that the operation of SIRREP
and the HAZTRAKS systems is the most effective way to
track the movement of hazardous wastes between the two
countries.
Another relevant accomplishment of the Border XXI
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup was the negotiation
and recent agreement on the Consultative Mechanism for the
Exchange of Information on New and Existing Facilities for the
Management of Hazardous and Radioactive Waste within 100
Kilometers of the U.S.-Mexico Border. This mechanism
addresses public concern on both sides of the border relat-
ed to the siting and operation of hazardous and radioactive
waste facilities in the border region. The agreement will
allow the two countries to exchange data and other infor-
mation about new and existing treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities in the border region that handle hazardous or
radioactive wastes.
|L ~ ,v NATURAL "
£* RESOURCES
The Natural Resources Workgroup has implemented multi-
ple activities related to biodiversity and natural protected
areas. The principal activities were carried out under a let-
ter of intent (LOI) signed in June 1997 between Mexico's
Secretaria de Media Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca
(SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Natural
Resources, and Fisheries) and the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI). The LOI broadened cooperation to pre-
serve contiguous natural protected areas along the border in
two pilot regions, the Sonoran Desert and the Chihuahua
Desert. The agreement established a basis for managing the
areas as shared ecosystems. Compatible management sys-
tems provide the continuity needed for protection activities
and research efforts on bodi sides of the border. Several
projects of common interest already have been implement-
ed in these shared protected natural areas, including: (1)
exchange of personnel; (2) capacity building through train-
ing; (3) development of species inventories; and (4) cooper-
ation on cultural resources.
In June 1999, SEMARNAP and DOI signed a joint
declaration to increase binational cooperation on the upper
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI WORKGROUPS: KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
24
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
San Pedro River basin. The declaration focuses on improv-
ing and conserving the basin's natural and cultural resources,
including the river and its riparian zone. The agreement
includes provisions for policy coordination, instrument for-
mulation, research, transboundary species study, and infor-
mation exchange.
One of the foremost accomplishments achieved in Mex-
ico has been the establishment of a management system for
six natural protected areas in the border region. The sys-
tem provides for the development of management plans and
ensures the availability of personnel, equipment, vehicles, and
financial resources for the natural protected areas. In addi-
tion, Mexico has identified habitats for species that require
special protection, such as the bighorn sheep, the black bear,
the pronghorn, the ironwood, and various cacti.
POLLUTION
J PREVENTION
The Pollution Prevention Workgroup has worked to estab-
lish pollution prevention, energy efficiency, and recycling as
practical methods of achieving economic growth and envi-
ronmental protection along the U.S.-Mexico border. The
INE has established a pollution prevention office within the
agency; partnerships have been initiated among INE, EPA,
the states, industry, and educational institutions along the
border. EPA and the states have worked with PROFEPA
to promote pollution prevention as a means of achieving
compliance. Highlights have included pollution prevention
workshops, held with the cooperation of local governments,
industry, and educational institutions, on topics that best
suit the needs of the communities.
Three pollution prevention roundtables have been initi-
ated to further promote pollution prevention and energy effi-
ciency as a cost-effective and sustainable way to achieve eco-
nomic growth while preserving the border environment.
Roundtable members consider the concerns and needs of the
maquiladora industry and view local academic institutions as
a way to address those needs through the establishment of
sustainable cooperative programs.
By increasing efficiency and promoting pollution pre-
vention as a cost-effective environmental compliance tool,
workgroup members have joined together to provide tech-
nical assistance along the border. In California-Baja Cali-
fornia, technical assistance was provided through a series of
workshops targeting the electronics and textile sectors. The
workshops educated the industries on methods that would
reduce air pollution.
Through the Arizona-Mexico International Green Orga-
nization (AMIGO) program, manufacturers, trade associa-
tions, and government agencies in the Arizona-Sonora region
are invited to participate in AMIGO activities, including
information-sharing on successful waste reduction activities
and technology transfer. For their participation in the pro-
gram, maquiladora facilities were presented with awards for
environmental excellence.
Along the Texas-Mexico border, TNRCC, in conjunc-
tion with PROFEPA's voluntary auditing program, completed
21 on-site technical assistance visits to maquiladoras. Reports
from participating maquiladoras indicated annual reductions
of 9,600 tons of hazardous waste, 88,600 pounds of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and 57,400 tons of nonhaz-
ardous waste. Further, 37 million gallons of water and 77
million kilowatt hours of electrical energy had been con-
served. Through pollution prevention and energy conserva-
tion methods, the maquiladoras had realized annual savings
of almost $10.1 million.
Rather than leaving costly remediation for future gen-
erations, the Pollution Prevention Workgroup works to
achieve economic growth and a healthy environment through
the prevention of environmental problems. The workgroup
relies heavily on the work of and its partnership with the
border states as they continue to collaborate with industry
and educational institutions in local communities to carry
out pollution prevention efforts.
!" WATER
After five years, the Border XXI Program has made signifi-
cant progress in implementing infrastructure that addresses
water needs in the border region.
The main improvement in Mexico has been the increase
in potable water services between 1995 and 2000 from 88
percent of the population served to 93 percent served. The
availability of sewage services also has increased from 60 per-
cent served in 1995 to 75 percent served in 2000, while
wastewater treatment improved from 34 percent to 75 per-
cent served. Most border communities in the United States
now have 100 percent water and sewage coverage, with the
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI WORKGROUPS: KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
25
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
exception of the communities known as colonias. Howev-
er> in most of the colonias, as well as in other areas, funds
already have been allocated for improving systems operations
in the colonias and for increasing water and sewage coverage.
The three levels of government in both countries, as well
as binational agencies, have participated in the program. The
United States-Mexico Border Infrastructure Cooperation Com-
mittee includes participants from EPA, Mexico's Comisidn
Nadonal del Agtia (CNA, or National Water Commission),
both sections of the International Boundary Water Commission
(IBWC), the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECQ, and the North American Development Bank (NADB).
Through the committee, the partners work closely to develop
policies to implement potable water and sanitation projects in
the region, thereby increasing institutional coordination, stream-
lining decision making, and optimising available resources.
The BECC and the NADB were created to collaborate
on the preparation, development, implementation, and fund-
ing of border infrastructure projects. During the period
since 1995, the BECC has certified 36 water or sanitation
; 2
projects in communities on both sides of the border. Some
of the projects already have been completed, while others
are in progress or still in the planning stage. Certified proj-
ects might receive funding from the EPA Border Environ-
mental Infrastructure Fund (BEIF). The BEIF, which is
managed by the NADB, provides grants equal to those pro-
vided by federal, state, and local governments. To date, the
BEIF has provided significant funding for several certified
projects. In addition, loans are available through the NADB.
Among the many projects in the planning stages are spe-
cific programs to provide services to colonias and various
Indian tribes on the U.S. side of the border. In addition,
Indian tribes in the U.S. border area have received funding
for sewage and potable water projects through both the Envi-
ronmental Infrastructure Program for Indian Tribes and die
Border Grant Program.
EPA, the CNA, the BECC, the NADB, the IBWC, and
FUMEC have collaborated on various studies focused on
strengthening water utilities. The studies have assisted the
utilities in improving the design and planning of various
projects, as well as in watershed monitoring.
Special emphasis also has been placed on border water-
shed management, mainly of the Colorado River and the
Rio Grande. Binational committees have been established
to address technical problems and collaboration issues. The
committees have worked to characterize water quality, with
the goal of determining the correlation between the devel-
opment and maintenance of environmental infrastructure and
the water quality of the two rivers.
In addition, the Water Workgroup has helped build capac-
ity in communities on both sides of the border. Most notably,
EPA has provided resources to support workshops and the
development of training manuals for utility operators.
Described above are only a few of the principal accom-
plishments of the U.S-Mexico Border XXI workgroups. A
detailed list of each workgroups activities and achievements
is provided in the chapter of this document that focuses on
that workgroup.
Number of projects certified as of March 2000.
THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI WORKGROUPS: KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
26
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
**" OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL
ISSUES AND THEMES
Economic and population growth in the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der area has had a significant effect on urban and
regional air quality. Today, air pollution presents
a significant environmental risk in some border
communities. Many border residents are fre-
quently exposed to elevated concentrations of car-
bon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and partic-
ulate matter. Emissions from industrial sources;
residential combustion (heating and cooking);
trash burning; and cars, trucks, and buses and dust
from unpaved roads are significant contributors to
poor air quality. In some border communities,
inhalation exposure to toxics, including pesticides,
is another concern. In addition, air pollutant emis-
sions within and outside the border region also
threaten visibility in some border protected areas,
such as Big Bend National Park, Texas.
Formal binational efforts between the United
States and Mexico to protect and improve air qual-
ity in the border region began with the signing of
two annexes to the La Paz Agreement. Annex IV,
signed in 1987, outlines a sulfur dioxide emission
limit for border copper smelters. Annex V, signed
in 1989, directs the United States and Mexico to
assess the causes of and develop solutions to air
quality problems in border sister cities. In addi-
tion to the La Paz Agreement, the Clean Air Act,
as amended in 1990, authorizes the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coopera-
tion with its counterpart Mexican agencies, to
monitor and improve air quality in regions along
the border. The 1996 Ley General del Equilibria
Ecoldgico y la Protecci6n al Ambiente (LGEEPA, or
General Law of Ecological Balance and Environ-
mental Protection) enables Mexico's Secretaria de
Media Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca
(SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Nat-
ural Resources, and Fisheries) to work to improve
air quality in cities and the international border
areas of the country.
^OBJECTIVES OF THE AIR WORKGROUP
ANDTPROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
Since 1984, the workgroup has endeavored to protect
air quality in border cities dirough air quality plan-
ning and management activities, such as develop-
ing emissions inventories; deploying, operating,
and maintaining air monitoring networks; and
designing air quality plans to reduce and control
air pollution. The workgroup, which is co-chaired
by EPA and Mexico's Institute Nacional de Ecologia
(INE, or National Institute of Ecology), was cre-
ated to promote regional and border-wide strate-
gies to improve air quality. The workgroup's goal
is to implement those strategies to achieve U.S.
and Mexican health-based ambient air quality stan-
dards. To achieve that goal, the workgroup iden-
tified the eight objectives listed in table 4-1 in the
1996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Framework
Document (Framework Document).
The workgroup focuses its efforts in three geo-
graphic areas of priority, because of the larger pop-
ulations and severity of the air pollution problem
in those locations: San Diego County, Califor-
nia-Rosarito and Tijuana, Baja California; Impe-
Objectives
• Develop air quality assessments and improvement programs to attain air qual-
ity standards in border communities.
• Continue to build institutional infrastructure and expertise in the border region
through technical assistance, training, and information and technology transfer.
• Encourage the ongoing involvement of local communities.
• Review and recommend the implementation of air pollution abatement strate-
gies that do not require extensive technical evaluation.
• Study the potential for economic incentive programs to reduce air pollution
faster and more cost-effectively than "command-and-control" methods.
• Explore the development of a new source notification protocol between the
United States and Mexico.
• Pursue the development of an energy and air quality subworkgroup.
• Pursue the development of a subworkgroup on border vehicle congestion^
The objectives listed above may have been paraphrased from the Framework Document, for
a more detailed description of the objectives, please refer to that report.
The objectives described in this section may be referred to by number. T
intended for ease of reference only and do not imply order of importance.
Table 4-1
The Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment in the Border Area was signed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on February 16, 1984.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
rial Valley, California-Mexicali, Baja California; and El Paso
County, Texas-Ciudad Judrez, Chihuahua-Dona Ana Coun-
ty, New Mexico. Short-term air quality monitoring and
pollutant exposure studies also are being conducted in
Nogales, Arizona-Nogales, Sonora and Douglas, Arizona-
Agua Prieta, Sonora. In addition, air quality monitoring is
being conducted in the lower Rio Grande Valley The work-
group also has conducted a preliminary analysis of how
long-range air pollution transport impacts visibility in the
Big Bend National Park-Sierra del Carmen area. Finally,
the workgroup has addressed border-wide air quality issues,
such as vehicle congestion and the relationship between ener-
gy generation and air quality.
Progress Toward Goals
Table 4-2 presents the objectives addressed by each geo-
graphic area, program, or project. Table 4-3 on the follow-
ing page summarizes the ambient parameters measured by
the Border XXI air monitoring networks.
Progress Toward Objectives by Geographic Area or Proje'qrt
Geographic
Are«T/Project
Air Quality
Assessments
and
Improvement
Programs
Institutional
Infrastructure
Local
nvolvement
Abatement
Strategies
Economic
Incentives
Development
of Neyi/ Source
Notification ,
Analysis
of I
and Air
Quality
| Analysis
Vehicle
Congestion
San Diego County-
Tijuana-Rosarito
Imperial County-
Mexicali
Tecata, Californta-Tecate,
Bflja California
Nogaies-Nogales
Douglas-Agua Prieta
B Paso County-
Cludad Juarez-Dona Ana
County
Brownsville and Laredo,
Texas
Emissions Inventory
Methodology
Energy and
Air Quality
Border Vehicle
Congestion
Air Pollution
Training Program
for Mexico
Now Source
Notification
Big Bend Air Quality
Californla-BaJa
California Intensive Air
Quality Monitoring Study
Annex IV Report
Air Pollution Training
Program for Senior
Managers
• ImiMwiiwi "biociivr ntidr
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
nsscd
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• '
•
•
•
•i , ', • , ' ', '' '
. ,1 i- .p y ,5 ,;
„. :. -. ,
•
:
. •
; = 1
•
•: , ' . '
• • .'•'•!
•\
I
I
. !
• ,'
• • M . "'!
• ? I
Table 4-2
Al R
28
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
1 .Border XXI Air Monitoring Station Measured Parameters
Border City or State/County PM-10 PM-2.5 SOf , CO NOX O3 Pb3 Air Toxics" Meteorological Parameters
El Paso County, Texas
Dona Ana County, New Mexico
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua1
San Diego County, California
Tijuana and Rosarito, Baja California1
Imperial County, California
Mexicali, Baja California1
Nogales, Arizona
Nogales, Sohora
Douglas, Arizona
Agua Prieta, Spno'ra
Yuma, Arizona2
San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora
Big Bend National Park
Laredo,. Texas
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
Lower Rio Grande Valley Area
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
«
•
•
_ •
•
•
•
•
^
•
•
•
. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
~
•
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
-
i
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• -
T/RH/ws/wD/sR/uv
WS/WD
• ' - :T/WS/WD
T/WS/WD
T/WS/WD
T/WS/WD
T/WS/WD
' >'- - T/WS/WD
T/WS/WD
T/WS/WD
T/WS/WD
T/WSWD
T/RHAVS/WD
T/WS/WD
;TAVS/WD
T/WS/WD
1 Additional air monitoring stations are expected to be added to j monitor for PM-2.5 in Mexicali and Tijuana and Rosarito. A lead air monitoring station also is
planned for Giudad Juarez. 1
2 At the time this report was prepared, Yuma had one PM-10 ait} monitoring station. At that time, a similar study in Nogales-Nogales and Douglas-Agua Prieta
was being planned. |
3 High-volume PM-10 samplers are used to gather data on lead.l
4 For a list of air toxics monitored, see the Information Center ofi Air Pollution (CICA) home page at_www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica
T = Temperature; WS = Wind speed; WD = Wind direction; RH = Relative humidity; SR = Solar radiation; UV = Ultraviolet radiation; PM-10 = Paniculate
matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM-2.5 = Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SO8 = Sulfur dioxide; CO = Carbon monoxide;
NO,, = Oxides of,nitrogen; O3 - Ozone; Pb = Lead I -
San Diego County-Rosarito-Tijuana, Tecate-Tecate, and
Imperial County-Mexicali Air Programs
Through the workgroup, EPA and SEMARNAP have initi-
ated and conducted binational air quality planning and man-
agement activities in the sister cities of San Diego-Tijuana;
Tecate, California-Tecate, Baja California; and Imperial
County-Mexicali. The focus of recent efforts has been to
establish and operate air quality monitoring networks in
Tijuana and Rosarito and Mexicali that are similar to those
operating in San Diego County and Imperial County.
In 1996, the workgroup launched the Rosarito-Tijuana
Air Quality Monitoring Network in cooperation with the
California Air Resources Board (GARB), the Institute Tec-
nol6gico de Tijuana (Institute of Technology at Tijuana), state
and local representatives of Tijuana and Rosarito, and the
Universidad Autdnoma de Baja California (Autonomous Uni-
Table 4-3
versity of Baja California). In 1997, the workgroup collab-
orated with GARB, the Imperial Valley Air Pollution Con-
trol District, the Western Governors' Association (WGA),
the Institute Tecnoldgico de Mexicali (Institute of Technology
at Mexicali), the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California,
and municipal and state government in Baja California to
launch the Mexicali Air Quality Monitoring Network.
These air quality monitoring efforts are intended to lay
the foundation for a binational air quality management pro-
gram with the overall goals of determining ambient air pol-
lutant concentrations, determining contributing emission
sources and their relative impacts, recommending cost-effec-
tive control strategies, and measuring progress and compli-
ance with the health-based national ambient air quality stan-
dards of each country.
AIR
29
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
In February 2000, a binational group, the Binational
Border Air Quality Alliance, was formed, with a member-
ship of 20 citizens from each country. Members include
local officials from San Diego County, Rosarito, and Tijua-
na, as well as representatives of nongovernmental organiza-
tions in those areas. The objective of the alliance is to rec-
ommend air quality issues to state and federal authorities
and to the Border XXI Air Workgroup.
Also in February 2000, the three levels of the Mexican
government launched a program to improve the ambient air
quality of Mexicali between 2000 and 2005, the primary
objective in addressing the air quality problems of the city.
The local level binational participation that has occurred
in the San Diego County-Tijuana-Rosarito and Imperial
County-Mexicali air programs has helped build institution-
al infrastructure and increase expertise in air quality plan-
ning and management.
In kte 1998, the workgroup, after hearing the concerns
of the public regarding air quality in the Tecate-Tecate region,
decided to launch a one-year study of the Tecate-Tecate region
to determine whether there were any air pollutants of concern.
However, because of power outages, consistent data were not
always obtained. Therefore, the area will be monitored for an
additional year to obtain enough data to evaluate. Assessment
of the area should be completed later this year.
Nogales-Nogales and Douglas-Agua Prieta Air Programs
As a result of increases in population, vehicular traffic, and
industrial activity in the Nogales-Nogales air basin, there was
a need to evaluate levels of air pollutants hi that area. For
that reason, eight monitoring stations operated on both sides
of the border from 1994 to 1995. Six of the stations were
capable of measuring particulate matter less than 10 microns
in diameter (PM-10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
in diameter (PM-2.5), and meteorological parameters, while
four of the stations were capable of measuring air toxic pol-
lutants. After one year of intensive sampling, four stations
(two on each side of the border) were left hi place to con-
tinue monitoring for PM-10 and PM-2.5.
The general public has been involved in this air program
in a number of ways. First, local public concern regarding a
myeloma cancer cluster prompted the subworkgroup to include
air toxics monitoring in the one-year study. In addition, the
Ambos Nogales Subworkgroup conducted a series of meetings
to obtain public input on the site location for the monitoring
stations. The public was further involved in (1) determining
the location of an air monitoring station on Carrillo Street in
Nogales, Arizona, where the local community believed the epi-
center of the myeloma cluster was located, and (2) selecting
some of the air toxics for which the air should be analyzed.
Volunteers from the community also participated in the sub-
workgroup and facilitated the collection of PM-10 and PM-2.5
air monitoring filters. Following the air monitoring study, an
emissions inventory was completed for Nogales-Nogales in 1997.
At the request of the local community, a similar study
was conducted in the Douglas-Agua Prieta area to determine
the concentrations of ambient air contaminants on both sides
of the border. The first phase of the Study of Airborne Par-
ticulate (PM-10) and Toxic Substances in Douglas-Agua Pri-
eta, completed in 1997, determined the most appropriate
location for the air monitoring stations. The stations were
established in January 1999. Air quality monitoring was
completed in February 2000. Field work on the emissions
inventory of the region began, with completion expected in
late 2000. Analysis of the air sampling data also is currently
underway.
El Paso County-Ciudad Juarez-Dona Ana County Air
Program
The workgroup continues its efforts to improve air quality
in the El Paso County-Ciudad Jua"rez-Dofia Ana County area
of the border, known as the Paso del Norte region. This
binational community of almost two million people is fre-
quently exposed to air quality that does not meet U.S. and
Mexican health-based standards for ozone (O3), particulate
matter (PM), and carbon monoxide (CO).
Under the workgroup, EPA and INE led the planning
and analysis efforts to complete comprehensive air quality
assessments in the shared air basin. Federal, state, and local
authorities have performed both long- and short-term air mon-
itoring, developed emissions inventories, and performed air
quality modeling exercises. This work, initiated in 1989, cre-
ated an area-specific mobile source emissions model, as well
as a study of population exposure to PM-10 and associated
emission sources. The 1996—1997 Paso del None Ozone Study
created a comprehensive emissions^ air quality, and meteoro-
logical data base for the airshed to allow air quality modeling
for the entire air basin.
30
-------
U.5,-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The Paso del Norte Air Quality Modeling Study will eval-
uate, through air quality modeling, the efficiency of poten-
tial binational ozone and carbon monoxide control strate-
gies. Ambient concentrations and meteorological field data
collected in the $1.6 million 1996-1997 Paso del None Ozone
Study, and the emissions inventories for El Paso County;
Sunland Park, Texas; and Ciudad Juarez will be used for this
exercise. The area-wide compilation of emissions invento-
ries was completed in September 1998, under a cooperative
program involving INE, EPA, and the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC).
Selection of Paso del Norte Air Quality Documents
Air Quality Management Program for Ciudad Juarez, 1998-2002. SEMAR-
NAP. 1998. ;
Analysis of Meteorological and Air Quality Data for the' 199G Paso del Norte
Ozone Study. Paul T. Roberts, Clinton P. MacDonald, Hilary H. Main, Timo-
thy Dye, Dana Coe, and Tami Haste. Sonoma Technology, Inc. Under
Subcontract to Science Applications International Corporation for EPA. Sep-
tember 1997. . • ;...:;" •;:•;•' ".
Data Collected by 915-MHZ Radar Profilers and Surface Meteorological Sta-
tions During the 1996 Paso del Norte Ozone Study. Charles Lindsey, Scott
Ray, Timothy Dye, Mark Arthur, Paul Roberts, and Charles Stuart. Sonoma:
Technology, Inc. Under Subcontract to Science Applications International
Corporation for EPA. July 1997. ,
Data Collected by the STI Aircraft During the 1996 Paso del Norte Ozone
Study. Jerry Anderson, Dave Wright, Bastian Shoell, and Paul Roberts. Sono-
ma Technology, Inc. Under Subcontract to Science Applications Interna-
tional Corporation for EPA. November 1996.
Hydrocarbon Source Apportionment for the 1996 Paso del Norte Ozone Study.
Eric Fujita. Desert Research Institute. Prepared for EPA. March 1998.
Compilation and Evaluation of a Gridded Emission Inventory for the' Paso
• del Norte Area. Tami Haste, Naresh Kumar, Lyle Chinkin, and Paul Roberts.
Sonoma Technology, Inc. Under Contract to Pacific Environmental Services,
Inc. for EPA. September 1998. i -
Winter Season Air Pollution in El Paso-Ciudad Juarez. Wayne Einfeid and Hugh
Church. Sandia National Laboratories. Under Contract to, EPA. March 1995.
JAG Strategic Plan. Joint Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Air
Quality in the Paso del Norte Air Basin. May 1999.
Web Sites: www.0zonemap.org
www.bordercleanair.org
All documents available through CJCA at www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cioa
Table 4-4
A final report on the modeling will be completed later
this year. The report will be shared with U.S. and Mexi-
can policy makers for discussions about implementing rec-
ommended bilateral control programs in Paso del Norte that
can help the region attain U.S. and Mexican health-based
air quality standards. The workgroup also has supported
local efforts to document haze intensity and movement in
the Paso del Norte air basin through the use of video and
digital cameras. To further public understanding of air pol-
lution in the region, some of those images are being placed
on the web site www.ozonemap.org. Table 4-4 lists a num-
ber of documents that provide information about air qual-
ity in the Paso del Norte air basin.
As part of these activities, EPA and INE have worked
to increase technical capacity to institutionalize air quality
control programs at the local level. In 1988, staff of the
EPA, SEMARNAP/INE, the University of Texas at El Paso
(UTEP), and TNRCC were trained in the use of the Com-
prehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx)
ozone-carbon monoxide air quality model. In the near future,
EPA and INE will complete initial modeling runs that will
indicate control programs that are likely to improve ozone
and carbon monoxide air quality in the region.
One of the most important strategic achievements in the
past three years has been SEMARNAP s establishment of the
Programa de Gestidn de la, Calidad del Aire de Ciudad Juarez
1998-2002 (Air Quality Management Program for Ciudad
Juarez 1998-2002) in May 1998. Public- and private-sec-
tor entities were involved in the development of the pro-
gram. The strategy outlines an extensive regulatory and pol-
icy agenda that would result in significant improvement in
air quality control in Ciudad Judrez. In conjunction with
state implementation plan (SIP) air quality management
activities in El Paso County and Dona Ana County, the air
pollution reduction priorities in the Ciudad Juirez air qual-
ity management program serve as the foundation for addi-
tional binational air quality improvement efforts.
In May 1996, EPA and INE committed significant
resources to the effort to foster citizen participation in air
quality improvement in the area by signing Appendix 1 to
Annex V of the La Paz Agreement, which created the Joint
Advisory Committee (JAC) for the Improvement of Air Qual-
ity in the El Paso County, Texas-Dona Ana County, New
Mexico-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua Air Basin. This panel of
20 representatives of governmental and nongovernmental
agencies and organizations on both sides of the border pre-
pares for the workgroup recommendations directed at solv-
ing the areas air quality problems. In 1999, the JAC com-
A I R
31
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Priority
pletcd a strategic plan outlining 26 priority actions for improv-
ing air quality. A selection of strategic priorities is present-
ed in Table 4-5 on the following page. The JAG forward-
ed the recommended priorities to the workgroup for imple-
mentation. Some of the priorities, such as establishing the
designated commuter lane (DCL) and distributing oxygenated
gasoline in Ciudad Judrez, have been implemented.
Economic mech-
anisms have been dis-
cussed as a potential
strategy to improve
air quality in the Paso
del Norte air basin.
The Paso del Norte
Air Quality Task
Force has proposed
that implementing
economic incentives
in the region may be
a more cost-effective
alternative for reduc-
ing emissions than
traditional "com-
mand-and-control"
measures. The Paso del Norte Air Quality Task Force is a
binational, grassroots organization formed in 1993 with the
objective of reducing air pollution and improving air quality
in the Paso del Norte region. It also catalyzed the formation
of the JAC. The use of economic incentives, and emissions
trading in particular, is highlighted in the language of the La
Paz Agreement. Since its inception, the JAC has held a work-
shop on International Supplemental Environmental Projects
(ISEP). Promoting the use of economic instruments is also a
priority under the JAC strategic plan. The Southwest Center
for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) also spon-
sored a workshop in September 1999 on emissions trading
within the air basin. The workgroup continues to explore the
application of economic incentives in the binational context.
The workgroup has supported the efforts of the Paso del
Norte Clean Cities Coalition to establish and operate the first
binational ozone alert program to reduce the number of days
on which ozone reaches unhealthy levels and to decrease the
severity of the ozone episodes on days on which pollution lev-
els exceed the standard. When the TNRCC predicts .that mete-
Select JAC Strategic Priorities
Enforce vehicle Importation regulations
Strengthen vehicle Inspection and maintenance
Promote DCL in 1999
Promote distribution of seasonally appropriate
gasoline throughout air basin
Conduct epidemiological studies to determine
health effects of air pollution
Develop health education program related
to air pollution
Establish epidemiological surveillance program
Promote economic incentive mechanisms for
air pollution control
Establish guidelines to promote and implement
a clean air investment fund
orological conditions are favorable for producing high ozone,
the Ozone Action Day Program coordinates notification of the
community through employers, television, radio, and newspa-
pers. Individuals are encouraged to take an active role in reduc-
ing their contributions to air pollution by carpooling, taking
mass transportation, and reducing the number of vehicle trips
they make. An integral part of the program is the ozone map-
ping software devel-
oped by Austin Col-
lege under a cooper-
ative agreement with
EPA The mapping
software models the
formation and trans-
port of ozone
throughout the bina-
tional air basin and
displays color-coded
ozone concentrations
on a geographic
information system
(GIS) map of the air-
shed. The map is
Options being developed
Options being developed
Stanton Street Bridge DCL opened September
1999
Distribution of oxygenated gasoline for
wintertime carbon monoxide season began
in Giudad Juarez in October 1999.
Study in progress in El Paso
Binational Ozone Action Day program initiated
in summer 1999
Program in progress in Ciudad Juarez
Workshops held June 1996 and
September 1999 , .. "..-
Activity in progress
Table 4-5
produced daily by
UTEP and is available to the public on the Internet at
www.ozonemap.org. Local television stations have used the map
to supplement their weather programming.
Brownsville-Laredo Air Quality Program
Five new air monitoring stations have been established, one
each in Brownsville, Mission, and Edinburg, Texas and two
in Laredo, Texas. Although none of these areas currently vio-
lates the U.S. national ambient air quality standards, increased
industrialization and truck traffic make it necessary to more
closely track air pollution in the region.
Emissions Inventory Development Program in Mexico
In conjunction with the WGA, the workgroup initiated the
Emissions Inventory Development Program in Mexico to
help build capacity in that country. The development of
emissions inventories will provide Mexico with a better
understanding of its own air pollution sources and will help
form the basis for designing emissions control programs.
To achieve that purpose, the Mexico Emissions Inventory
32
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Methodology was developed through a series of manuals that
cover the basics of developing an emissions inventory and
the need for and development of more sophisticated emis-
sions inventories. In some cases, the initial volumes pro-
vided the basis for workshops held in Mexico before the
entire program was completed.
The final work plan for the development of die entire
methodology was
completed in 1996.
Training course
materials and inven-
tory manuals contin-
ue to be developed.
General emissions
inventory training
was provided in Ciu-
dad Judrez (August
1996) and Tijuana
(November 1996), as
well as in five other
areas of Mexico out-
side the border
region. Technical
studies planned con-
sist of five parts: spe-
cial studies and refinement of inventory methodology,
mediodology testing, validation of emissions estimates, emis-
sion factor applicability to Mexico, and uncertainty analy-
sis. Four of the five manuals have been translated into Span-
ish. To build Mexico's technical capability to develop emis-
sions inventories, training course materials also were created
in the final implementation plan of the project. Pilot
methodology implementation projects with hands-on train-
ing were planned for Mexicali and Tijuana, where actual
emissions inventories were to be developed as part of the
training. The pilot program for Mexicali was completed,
and the final emissions inventory report was presented to
the Border Advisory Committee (a committee of emissions
inventory experts from states in the border region, as well
as representatives of SEMARNAP) in November 1999. Table
4-6 lists the documents included in the Mexicali program.
The pilot implementation for Tijuana was initiated in 1999.
All the products resulting from die project are available on the
U.S.-Mexico Centra de Informacidn sobre la, Calidad del Aire
Mexicali Emissions Inventory Methodology Documents
Product/Document
Fundamentals
Basic Emission Estimating
Techniques
Point Sources
Area Sources
Motor Vehicles
Advanced Training Workbook
Point Source Questionnaire
Database Options Analysis
MOBJLE-Mexico
Mexicali Emissions Inventory
Description
(CICA, or Border Information Center on Air Pollution) home
page and the INE home page at www.ine.gob.mx, and will be
available in both languages later diis year.
Subworkgroup on Energy and Air Quality
The workgroup established the Subworkgroup on Energy and
Air Quality, composed of representatives of government, the
private sector, non-
profit organizations,
and academic insti-
tutions. The sub-
workgroup was
formed to identify
actions to promote
energy conservation
and expand the use
of alternative ener-
gy sources, such as
renewables and
clean fuels that
would improve bor-
der air quality. The
Subworkgroup
focuses on encour-
Table 4-6 aging ^ facjlitat.
ing sustainable or renewable energy projects, encouraging
energy efficiency, and providing a data base of energy needs
and resources in the border region. The subgroup has cre-
ated a workplan, which is available at the WGA homepage
at www. westgov. org/wga/initiatives/border. htm.
Subworkgroup on Border Vehicle Congestion
The workgroup and the "WGA created the Subworkgroup on
Border Vehicle Congestion to advise the workgroup on poten-
tial strategies to reduce vehicle congestion in border com-
munities. The Subworkgroup hosted a series of focus groups
along the border in San Diego; Nogales, Arizona; El Paso;
and Laredo to solicit input from stakeholders on how to
solve the vehicle congestion problem. A meeting was held
in San Antonio, Texas to present the results to border deci-
sion makers. Recommendations developed by the sub-
workgroup can be found on the WGA homepage at
www. westgov. org/wga/initiatives/border. htm.
Fundamentals of emissions inventories
Basic techniques for estimating emissions from various sources
How to develop emissions inventories for point sources
How to develop inventories for area sources.
How to develop inventories for mobile sources
Taking all the techniques learned thus far and providing
advanced training
Questionnaire used to obtain emissions inventory information
from major sources in Mexico
An analysis of what options are available for Mexico to use as a
data base for emissions inventories, and the various costs of
implementing each
A mobile source emissions estimation model based on
MOBILE-5 and MOBILE-Juarez, customized for use anywhere
in Mexico
An ajr pollution source emissions inventory for the Mexieali area
AI R
33
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution
To provide technical assistance and information about air
quality planning and management to government, academia,
industry, and the general public in the border region, the
workgroup established the CICA program in May 1995.
The program, which is implemented by the Clean Air Tech-
nology Center of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, maintains telephone and facsimile services and
has established a web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica.
The site provides (1) access to air quality data from all
monitoring sites in Mexico and the United States located with-
in 100 kilometers of die border; (2) information about and
access to CICA products and other available border-related air
quality documents; (3) links to other border-related web pages;
(4) information about how to navigate EPA web pages; and
(5) an e-mail link for use in submitting requests and com-
ments. Air quality data for both criteria and hazardous air
pollutants are updated quarterly. Other information, includ-
ing the Mexico Emissions Inventory Workbook and program man-
uals prepared by the WGA, is also available on the CICA site.
More than 40 products can be downloaded from the web site
in both English and Spanish. CICA has also funded two
grants, one to monitor air quality in Tecate, Baja California
and the other to study transportation issues in Ciudad Juarez.
Air Pollution Training Program for Mexico
Another priority of the workgroup is to build local capacity
to manage air quality in border communities. The Air Pol-
lution Training Program has played a significant role in achiev-
ing this objective. This program has coordinated the efforts
of INE, EPA, the UniversiaadAutdnoma Metropolitan (UAM,
or Autonomous Metropolitan University), the University of
Texas at Arlington (UTA), and the technological institutes of
Matamoros, Tamaulipas; Ciudad Juarez; Nogales; and Tijua-
na to assess the training needs of local air quality managers.
Results of the study helped partners identify the present and
future air quality training needs of federal, state, and munic-
ipal employees in Tijuana; Nogales; Ciudad Judrez; Ciudad
Acufia, Coahuila, and Matamoros, Tamaulipas. The Air Pol-
lution Training Blueprint was subsequendy developed, oudin-
ing specific priorities for fulfilling air pollution training needs.
In addition, a core air pollution curriculum and train-the-
trainer and course materials were developed and translated
into Spanish. Training courses were delivered in the border
region in 1996 and 1997. Table 4-7 lists the accomplish-
ments of the Air Pollution Training Program.
New Source Notification Protocol
Since before the inception of the Border XXI Program in
1996, the workgroup has been addressing the issue of noti-
fying impacted parties when proposing to site a new source
of air pollution that could have cross-border air quality impacts.
The workgroup wanted to use the air-related template from
a multi-media agreement that was being developed at the tri-
national level by the United States, Mexico, and Canada as a
model for the new source notification protocol. Recendy,
progress has been slow on the trilateral agreement. Howev-
er, the workgroup continues to focus on this issue.
Accomplishments of Ai|i Pollution Training Program
Project/Workshop
Air Pollution Training Needs
Assessment for Tijuana, Nogales,
Ciudad Juarez, Ciudad Aouha, and
Matamoros
Air Pollution Training Blueprint
Control of Particulates Training
Course
Emissions Inventory Development
Training Course
Training Course for Control of
Gaseous Emissions
1996
1996
April 1996 - Tijuana
June 1997 - Ciudad Juarez
August 1996'- Ciudad Juarez
Activity in progress
Table 4-7
ENVIRONMENTAL
'^ INDICATORS
Many border area residents are exposed to health-threat-
ening levels of air pollutants, including CO, nitrogen diox-
ide (NO2), O3, and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of
10 micrometers or less (PM-10). Evaluating levels of tar-
geted air pollutants is a priority for EPA and SEMARNAP,
especially in heavily populated urban areas where air qual-
ity problems are caused by emissions from vehicles, many
of which are older and poorly maintained; extensive indus-
trial activity; and numerous other sources, such as unpaved
roads and solid waste disposal fires.
In this section, the workgroup provides updated informa-
tion about the indicators for ambient concentrations for CO,
sulfur dioxide (SOJ, NO2, O3, PM, and lead (Pb). (Each pol-
lutant is described in further detail in Table 4-8.) In addition,
the section presents new information about those border cities
34
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Criteria Air Pollutants and Associated Health Effects
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide binds to the hemoglobin in the blood, reducing delivery of oxygen to the body's tissues and organs. The health threat from exposure
to lower levels of carbon monoxide is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, such as angina pectoris. At much higher levels of
exposure, carbon monoxide can be poisonous to healthy individuals. Visual impairment, reduced work capacity and manual dexterity, poor learning abil-
ity, and difficulty in performing tasks are all associated with exposure to elevated carbon monoxide levels.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a gas emitted through the combustion of fuel containing sulfur (primarily, coal and oil), metal smelting, and other industrial processes.
High concentrations of sulfur dioxide can result in tenriporary breathing impairment in asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short-term
exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated sulfur dioxide levels at moderate exertion may result in reduced lung function that may be accompanied
by such symptoms as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath. Other effects that have been associated with longer-term exposures to high
concentrations of sulfur dioxide, in conjunction with PM-10, include respiratory illness, alterations in the lungs' defenses, and aggravation of existing car-
diovascular disease.
Together, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are the major precursors to acidic deposition (acid rain), which is associated with the acidification of
soils, lakes, and streams; accelerated corrosion of buildings and monuments; and reduced visibility. Sulfur dioxide also is a major precursor to PM-2.5,
which is a significant health concern, as well as a principal pollutant that impairs visibility.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
A stifling, brownish gas, nitrogen dioxide is one of several highly reactive gases that belong to the group of nitrogen oxides. The major sources of man-
made nitrogen oxide emissions are high-temperature combustion processes, such as those occurring in automobiles and power plants.
Short-term exposures (for example, less than 3 hours) to current nitrogen dioxide concentrations may lead to changes in airway responsiveness and
lung function in individuals who have pre-existing respiratory illnesses and increases in respiratory illnesses in children (5 - 12 years, old). Long-term
exposures to nitrogen dioxide may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and may cause alterations in the lung. Atmospheric transfor-
mation of nitrogen oxides can lead to the formation of ozone and nitrogen-bearing particles, which are both associated with adverse health effects.
Nitrogen oxides also contribute to the formation of acid rain and a wide range of environmental effects, including potential changes in the composi-
tion and competition of some species of vegetation in wetland and terrestrial systems, visibility impairment, acidification of freshwater bodies, eutrophi-
cation of estuarine and coastal waters, and increases in levels of toxins harmful to fish and other aquatic life.
Ozone (O3)
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the afmosphere, but derives from reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
in the presence of heat and sunlight. Peak ozone concentrations generally occur during hot, dry, stagnant summertime conditions. Common sources of
VOCs include motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products, and other industrial sources. Nitrogen oxides are
emitted from motor vehicles, power plants, and other sources of combustion. Ozone formation is sensitive to variability in meteorological conditions.
Ozone and precursor pollutants that cause ozone also , can be transported into an area from pollution sources located hundreds of miles upwind.
Ground-level or tropospheric ozone should not be confused with stratospheric ozone, ; Which occurs naturally and provides a protective layer high above
the earth. •. • . ••' ' •'•'':.-. "".''.'' ; ::. -:-'••' ;.'-' -^ •-'.:'.. V;: ~ ';"' '" '-,:;'•. - ••-' • ' •.'•-• ..:-.--"--;-__•-
Ambient ozone exposures have been associated with increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory causes. Repeated
exposures to ozone can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection, result in lung inflammation, and aggravate such pre-existing respiratory
diseases as asthma. Other health effects attributed to ozone exposures include significant decreases in lung function and increased respiratory symp-
toms, such as chest pain and cough. These effects generally occur while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion. Children active out-
doors during the summer when ozone levels are at ;their highest are most at risk of experiencing such effects. Other at-risk groups include adults who
are active outdoors (for example, outdoor workers), and individuals who have' pre-existing respiratory disease, such, as asthma or chronic obstructive lung
disease. In addition, long-term exposures to moderate levels of ozone present the possibility of irreversible changes in the lungs, which could lead to
premature death or chronic respiratory illness. ,
Ozone also affects vegetation and ecosystems, leading to reductions in agricultural and commercial forest yields; reduced growth and survivability of
tree seedlings; and increased susceptibility of plants to disease, pests, and other environmental stresses such as harsh weather. In long-lived species,
those effects may become evident only after several years or even decades; therefore, there is a potential for long-term effects on forest ecosystems.
Ground-level ozone damage to the foliage of trees and other plants also can decrease the aesthetic value of ornamental species as well as the natural
beauty of national parks and recreation
Participate Matter (PM) /
Particulate matter is the general term used-for a mixture of solid particles arid liquid droplets found in the air. Particles exist in a wide range of sizes
•and originate from many different sources. Fine particles, or PM-2.5 (particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter), result from fuel combustion from motor
vehicles, power generating facilities, and industrial facilities, as wellas from residential fireplaces arid wood stoves. Coarse particles (particles larger than
2.5 microns in diameter and less than 10 microns in diameter) generally are. emitted from vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, materials handling, and
crushing and grinding operations, as well as windblown dust. Some particles are emitted directly from their sources, such as smokestacks and- cars. In
other cases, gases such as sulfur oxide and sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and VOCs interact-with other compounds in the air to form fine particles.
Their chemical and physical compositions vary depending on location, time of year, and degree of humidity;
Inhalable PM (PM-10, particles less than 10 microns in diameter) includes both fine and coarse particles. The particles can accumulate in the res-
piratory system and are associated with numerous health effects. Exposure to coarse particles is associated with the aggravation of such respiratory
conditions as asthma. Fine particles are associated most closely with such health effects as increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits
for heart and lung disease^ increased respiratory symptoms and disease, decreased lung function, and even premature death.. Sensitive groups that
appear to be at greatest risk for such effects include the elderly; individuals who have cardiopulmQnary disease, such as asthma; and children. Partic-
ulate matter is also the major cause of reduced visibility, and airborne particles can cause damage to paints and building materials.
Lead (Pb)
In the past, automotive sources were the major contributor of lead emissions to the air. As a result of regulatory efforts in the United States to reduce
the content of lead in gasoline, the contribution from the transportation sector has declined over the past decade. Since 1997, Mexico removed lead
from gasoline countrywide. Today, metals processing is the major source of lead emissions to the air.
Exposure to lead occurs primarily through inhalation of lead in air and ingestioh of lead in food, water, soil, or dust, it accumulates in the blood,
bones, and soft tissues. Lead can have adverse effects on the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments, such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage
to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children, resulting in learning deficits. Recent studies also show that lead may be a factor in high blood
pressure and subsequent heart disease. Lead also can be deposited on the leaves of plants, presenting a risk to grazing animals. , .
Table 4-8
A I R
35
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Types of Environmental Indicators
PRESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
Comparison of Mexican and U.S.
Health-Based Ambient Air Quality Standards
I Mexico United States
Ozone (0«
Sulfur Dioxide
(SOJ
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NOJ
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
TSP"
PM-10
Lead
(Pb)
0.11 ppm
0.33 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.21 ppm
11 ppm
260 pg/m3
75 pg/m3
150 pg/m3
50 pg/m3
1.5 pg/m3
1 hour
24 hours*
Annual
1 hour
8 hours
24 hours
Annual
24 hours
Annual*
3 months*
0.12 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.25 ppm
0.053 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
150 pg/m3
50 ug/m3
1.5 pg/m3
1 hour
24 hours
Annual*
1 hour-
Annual*
8 hours
1 hour
24 hours
Annual*
3 months*
• Arithmetic mean
" Total suspended participate - The EPA revoked the TSP standard
when it adopted the PM-10 standard.
ppm • Tola) parts per million !
(jg/m* • Micrograms fjer cubic meter
Because EPA revised th£ paniculate matter and ozone standards, this table;
may be revised at a later time. The revisions include the use of a new
PM-2.5 standard and a new 8-hour ozone standard. With the new stan-j
daid3, the EPA also has modified the method for determining whether an
area should be re-desJgpated to non-attainment status (that is, the extent
of tha exeeedances rattier than the frequency of the exceedances). While
. the new standards have been passed into law, they currently are not enforce-
abta, under an order by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until the new standards'
become enforceable, ERA will publicize air quality data based on the new,
standards so the publics need not wait for such information. In addition,]
ttto old standards will be enforced until the new standards are installed, j
: i - '
EPfr also has published! a standard for regional haze. The regional haze!
standard makes use of a decivi^w to determine improvement of, visibility.
However, at this time, the binational environmental indicators for th;is Border!
XXI report will be limited to, standards that are similar for both cofjntries. |
Table 4-9
that exceed ambient air quality standards (Table 4-9 compares
Mexican and U.S. standards) and the number of exceedance
days for each of those cities. Emissions inventory data also are
provided for El Paso County, Ciudad Juarez, and Dona Ana
County, as well as Imperial County and Mexicali.
The data represented in the graphics for the air indi-
cators are taken from EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS), CICA, and INE. The AIRS data were col-
lected directly by state and local agencies and quality assured
according to EPA guidelines. In addition, the data from
the border region were collected through collaboration of
the United States and Mexico.
Additional ambient air information for cities in the
United States is available to the public through EPA's AIRS
database. Binational air information is also available through
AIRS and on the CICA and INE web sites at
www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica and www.ine.gob.mx, respectively.
Criteria Pollutants and Associated Health Effects
On the preceeding page is a discussion of each of the criteria
pollutants, including pollutant characteristics and known or
potential human health and environmental impacts. Both the
United States and Mexico set health-based ambient air quali-
ty standards, as listed in Table 4-9. These standards are set
to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
AREAS THAT EXCEED, OR POTENTIALLY EXCEED, AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS
Table 4-10 on the following page lists areas that exceed or
potentially exceed the ambient air quality standards for the
six criteria air pollutants. This indicator suggests which
cities have potentially harmful air quality problems.
NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCE DAYS OF EACH AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARD
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 on the following page present for 1997
and 1998, respectively, the number of days per year on which
one or more exceedances of the air quality standard are meas-
ured. The data suggest the extent of the air quality problems
in the border cities. It should be noted that the exceedances
for PM-10 include all high-wind events, as well as anthro-
pogenic events.
Al R.
36
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Border Cities That Exceed or Potentially Exceed
Ambient Air Quality Standards ! .: i
Border Non-Attainment Areas PM-1O SO2 CO NO
United States
El Paso County, Texas
Dona Ana County, New Mexico
imperial County, California
San Diego County, California
Douglas, Arizona
Nogales, Arizona :
Yuma, Arizona
: Mexico
Tijuana, Baja California^
Mexicali, Baja California
San Luis Rfo Colorado, Sonora*
Nogales, Sonora
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
San Luis Rio Colorado has riot been monitored at this timel ', However,
because of its proximity to Yuma, Arizona, a PM-10 non-attainment area,
the workgroup believes that San Luis Rfo Colorado experiences air qual- :
ity problems s'imilar to those of Yuma.
The area currently is designated as a "transitional" non-attainnient area
for ozone. It is likely that the area will be redesignated to seripus since
the area continues to have ozone exceedances. !
Table 4-10
Number of Exceedance Days
Number of Exceedance Days
San Dlago
County
Imperial
County
DofiaAna
County
El Paso
County
B
El Ozone
BCD
• PM-10
• NO,
BSD,
OPb
Numberofetcmdanco.Oays
I hformat'brt 'fbj.- BDs'aYito' \fi9s 'not available at the time of •piiblicflteri.
' "-"" - "•'" "''•
San Diego
County
. Imperial
County
Doff a Ana
*, County
El Paso
County
E Ozone
DCO
H PM-10
• NO!
Q3O2
DPb
Number of Exceedance Days
Information for Rosarito was not available at the time of publication.
'
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-1
Al R
37
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 present the per-
cent of the year each of the border cities
studied had exceedances for 1997 and
1998, respectively.
As figures 4-3 and 4-4 illustrate,
Mexicali exceeded the Mexican air qual-
ity standard for O3 on 28 days hi 1997
and 30 days in 1998. The CO standard
was exceeded on 51 days in 1997i com-
pared with 77 days in 1998. The PM-
10 standard was exceeded on 34 days in
1997 and 30 days in 1998. The NO2
standard was exceeded on 3 days in 1998
in Tijuana. In San Diego County, the
only U.S. standard that was exceeded
was that for O3, on 1 day in 1997 and
9 days in 1998.
In the Paso del Norte air basin, Ciu-
dad Juarez exceeded the Mexican air
quality standards for O3 on 7 days hi
1997 and 8 days in 1998; the CO stan-
dard was exceeded on 24 days hi 1997
and 23 days in 1998; the PM-10 stan-
dard was exceeded on 11 days hi 1997
and 7 days hi 1998. El Paso County
exceeded the U.S. standard for ozone
once in 1997 and twice hi 1998; the CO
standard was exceeded once hi 1997 and
once hi 1998; the PM-10 standard was
exceeded on 10 days in 1997 and on 24
days hi 1998. In Dofia Ana County, the
ozone standard was exceeded on 1 day
in 1998, and the PM-10 standard on 18
days hi both 1997 and 1998.
AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECT!
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS |
Percent of the Year Having Exceedances*
Cludad
Judrez
PM-iO"exc"Bedance§ are based on 365 days, although sampling'Hays.
Percent of the Year Having Exceedances*
Figure 4-3
5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
PM-10 exqeedancBs are based on 365 days, although' s,amplii1d]a4?S'
Figure 4-4
This indicator presents maximum monthly ambient con-
centrations for select pollutants hi the three priority regions
(figures 4-5 through 4-11).
The plot of .maximum monthly ambient concentrations
provides a visual representation of seasonal variations and
annual trends for pollutants.
Mexico's reports El Segundo Informe sobre Calidad delAire
en Ciudades Mexicanas 1996 (Second Report on Air Quality in
Mexican Cities 1996), El Tercer Informe sobre Calidad de Aire en
Ciudades Mexicanas 1998 (Third Report on Air Quality in Mex-
ican Cities 1998), Programa de Gestidn de la Calidad del Aire
de Ciudad Juarez (Air Quality Management Program for Ciu-
38
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Dona Ana County, El Paso County, and Ciudad Juarez
Maximum Monthly 24-Hour PM-10 Concentration
Standard = 150 H9/"i3 for both United States and Mexico
1200
• Dona Ana County
D El Paso County
B Ciudad Juarez
3;
II
0 a.
3 "J
< co
o z
o z
B 3
Month
PM-10 concentration values include high-wind events.
STD = Standard
Figure 4-5
Dona Ana County, El Paso County, and Ciudad Juarez
Maximum Monthly 1-Hour Ozone Concentration
0.12 ppm = United States standard; 0.11 ppm = Mexican standard
• Dona Ana County
P El Paso County
!3 Ciudad Juarez
CO CO CO CO CO 00
O> O> O) O O> O5
>- z ^ cu a.
-3 3 -3 m
T -5 3 CO
Month
ppm = Parts ber million
STD = .Standard
Figure 4-6
At R
39
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Dona Ana County, El Paso County, and Ciudad Juarez
Maximum Monthly 8-Hour CO Concentration
9 ppm = United States standard; 11 ppm = Mexican standard
I
o
O
J
J
• Dona Ana County
El El Paso County
El Ciudad Juarez
Mexico STD = 11 ppm |
US STD = 9 ppm
G)OG)OO}G)O)O)OG)G) G)
m cc
S |
ppm 4 Parts per million
STD 4 StandardI
CO O
& §
o z
Month
Figure 4-7
Imperial County and Mexicali \
Maximum Monthly 1-Hour Ozone Concentration
O.12 ppm = United States standard; 6,11 ppm = Mexican standard
0.25
0.2
| 0,5
S
0.05
II Imperial County
El Mexicali
US STD = 0.12 ppm |
Mexico STD = 0.11 ppm
en en
•z. m
-..-
O) O) O) O> O> O} O)
pzcqccgcj-zJcD
Month
Q- hr
I1J O
CO 0
CO CO
en o)
> O
O uj
Z Q
ppm 4 Parts per million
SID 4 Standard
Figure 4-8
40
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Imperial County and Mexican
Maximum Monthly 8-Hour CO Concentration
9 ppm = United States standard; 11 ppm = Mexican standard
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
• Imperial County
Q Mexicali
Mexico STD = 11 ppm |
US STD = 9 ppm
o>
DC
Q.
<
O> O)
I §
01 o> .o> en o>
Q.
UJ
co
O Z Q T
Month
a:
.%
z =J
§• 8j;
> o
O UJ
Z O
ppm = Parts per million
STD = Standard
Figure 4-9
Imperial County and Mexicali
Maximum Monthly 24-Hour PM-1O Concentration
Standard = 15O |ig/m3 for both United States and Mexico
500
• Imperial County
El Mexicali
Month
PM-10 concentration values include high-winci events
STD = Standard _ I
Al R
41
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
San Diego County and Tijuana-Rosarito
Maximum Monthly 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations
0.12 ppm = United States standard; O.11 ppm = Mexican standard
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08 I
0.06
0.04
0.02 I
0
• San Diego County
ED Tijuana-Rosarito
USA STD = 0.12 ppm I
Mexico STD = 0.11 ppm '
I-.
m
O> O) O O>
1113
O) O) O) O)
C3 0. tr > O Z CO
3 Ul O O 111 < UJ
< CO O Z Q "3 "-
Month
ppm =j Parts pir million
STD J Standard :,:.'|. •,
a: re >; z J
CD a.
3 UJ
3 co
Figure 4-11
dad Jitdrez 1998-2002), and Programa para Mejorar Id Cali-
dad delAire de Mexicali 2000-2005 (Air Quality Improvement
Program for Mexicali 2000-2005) also provide important air
quality information.
EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS
This indicator presents emissions contributions by source
type in select border areas. The data provide information
about which source types are the greatest contributors to air
quality problems (Figures 4-12 through 4-32).
The emissions inventory data shown below for El Paso.
County-Ciudad Judrez-Dofia Ana County are those for the
1996 inventory year. The emission inventory data shown
for Mexicali and Imperial County are those for 1996 and
1997, respectively. The workgroup currently is preparing
emissions inventories for the Tijuana-Rosarito-Tecate-San
Diego County region. In addition, the workgroup, through
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, has
created an air emissions inventory for the sister cities of
El Paso County
1996 VOC Emissions Inventory
Total = 99 Tons per Day
(5.7%)
(4.0%)
(50.2%)
(40.1%)
• Point sources
-.0 Area sources
S Mobile sources
S Blogenlc/natural
sources
Figure 4-12
Nogales-Nogales and currently is working to create an emis-
sions inventory for Douglas-Agua Prieta. Completion of
that inventory is expected in 2000. Other sister city emis-
sions inventories may be developed after the emissions
inventories currently in progress have been completed.
Al R
42
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
El Paso County
1996 CO Emissions Inventory
Total = 391 Tons per Day
(2.1%)
(96.7%)
• Point sources
D Area sources
S Mobile sources
Figure 4-13
El Paso County
1996 PM-1O Emissions Inventory
Total = 49 Tons per Day
(11.0%) (11.2%)
(77.8%)
• Point sources
D Area sources
9 Mobile sources
Figure 4-16
El Paso County
1996 NOX Emissions Inventory
Total = 91 Tons per Day
(18.8%)
(74.2%)
(7.0%)
• Point sources
D Area sources
D Mobile sources
Figure 4-14
Ciudad Juarez
1996 HC Emissions Inventory
Total = 209 Tons per Day
(3.1%)
(71.6%)
(25.3%)
• Point sources
D Area sources
D Mobile sources
Figure 4-17
El Paso County
1996 SO, Emissions Inventory
Total = 2 Tons per Day
(21.8%)
(10.2%)
• Point sources
E3 Area sources
B Mobile sources
(68.1%)
Figure 4-15
• Ciudad Juarez
1996 CO Emissions Inventory
Total = 1,240 Tons per Day
(0.5%) (0.2%)
(99.4%)
• Point sources
CH Area sources
B Mobile sources
Figure 4-18
43
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
i Ciudad Juarez
1996 NOX Emissions Inventory
Total * 72 Tons per Day
(5.3%)
(3.1%)
(91.6%)
• Point sources
D Area sources
• Mobile sources
Figure 4-19
Dona Ana County
1996 VOC Emissions Inventory
Total = 33 Tons per Day
(0.4%)
(31.5%)
(68.1%)
• Point sources ,
D Area sources
E Mobile sources
Figure 4-22
: Ciudad Juarez
1996 SO2 Emissions Inventory
Total « 11.9 Tons per Day
(44.2%)
(17.3%)
(38.5%)
• Point sources
P Area sources
H Mobile sources
Figure 4-20
Dona!Ana County
1996 CO Emissions Inventory
Total = 233 Tons per Day
(OJ%) (1.7%)
(97.6%)
• Point sources
El Area sources
B Mobile sources
Figure 4-23
• Ciudad Juarez
1996 PM-10 Emissions Inventory
Total « 128 Tons per Day
(0.5%) (0.6%) (2.2%)
(96.8%)
• Point sources
Q Area sources
m Mobile sources
• Biogenlc/natural
sources
Figure 4-21
Dona, Ana County
1996 NOX Emissions Inventory
Total = 37 Tons per Day
(20.3%)
(2.0%)
(77.7%)
• Point sources
03 Area sources
• Mobile sources
Figure 4-24
Al R
44
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Dona Ana County
1996 SO2 Emissions Inventory
Total = 3 Tons per Day
(30.8%)
(0.8%)
(68.4%)
• Point sources
El Area sources
Q Mobile sources
Figure 4-25
Mexicali
1996 CO Emissions Inventory
Total = 729 Tons per Day
(2.0%) ,7 00/o)
(91.0%)
• Point sources
Q Area sources
Q Mobile sources
Figure 4-28
Dona Ana County
1996 PM-10 Emissions Inventory
Total = 700 Tons per Day
(66.0%)
(33.7%)
• Point sources
Q Area sources
S Biogenic/natural
sources
(0.3%)
Figure 4-26
Mexicali
1996 NOX Emissions Inventory
Total = 51 Tons per Day
(7%)
(8%)
(4%)
(81%)
• Point sources
H Area sources
D Mobile sources
US Biogenic/natural
sources
Figure 4-29
Mexicali
1996 HC Emissions Inventory
Total = 141 Tons per Day
(7%) (3%)
(60%)
(30%) • Point sources
0 Area sources
D Mobile sources
B Biogente/Nattiral
Figure 4-27
Mexicali
1996 SO2 Emissions Inventory
Total = 10.2 Tons per Day
(24%)
• Point sources
S Area sources'
CM Mobile sources
Figure 4-30
AIR
45
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
< Mexicali
1996' PM-10 Emissions Inventory
Total a 232 Tons per Day
(2.0%)
(24.0%>
(1.0%)
• Point sources
Q Area sources
9 Mobile sources
• Blogenle/natural
sources •
(73.0%)
Imperial County
1996 PM-1O Emissions Inventory
Total = 1,911 Tons per Day
(0.1%)
(49.9%)
• Point sources
El Area sources
B Mobile sources
(50.0%)
Figure 4-31
Figure 4-32
OTHER NOTABLE ACTIVITIES
AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Big Bend Air Quality
Since the inception of the Clean Air Act of 1977, EPA has
enforced a regulatory program to protect the visual aesthet-
ic quality of pristine lands in the United States from the
impacts of distinct stationary sources. In 1998, the pro-
gram, known as the Regional Haze Program, was expanded
to include impacts from other sources, some of which may
be hundreds of miles from the protected lands.
The United States and Mexico agree on the broad need
to protect and improve natural ecosystems and regions that
span the U.S.-Mexico border. To that end, the workgroup
has endeavored to identify the sources of regional haze that
endangers visibility in the Big Bend region of Texas. EPA
and the Proatraduria Federal de Protection alAmbiente (PRO-
FEPA, or Federal Attorney General for Environmental Pro-
tection) designed a preliminary study of visibility, sampling
19 sites over a five-week period.
The field component of the pilot study took place in
September and October 1996. In January 1999, the agen-
cies reached agreement on basic conclusions about the issue
and released a report to the public entitled Big Bend Nation-
al Park Regional Visibility Preliminary Study. On the basis of
limited field sampling and monitoring, the agencies concluded
that visibility was being affected by sources on both sides of
the border and that the amount that any particular source
contributed to haze varied by season and meteorology.
The initial study provided enough information to allow
the design of a broader study, upon which the agencies could
base more definitive conclusions. In 1999, the United States
conducted a more extensive study, the Big Bend Regional
Aerosol and Visibility Observational Study (BRAVO) that
included sampling of aerosols at 40 locations to measure the
pollution that contributes to regional haze. To better ascer-
tain which sources in which regions emit such pollution,
EPA employed perfluorocarbon tracers to estimate dispersion
of emissions over long distances.
In 2000, EPA and the U.S. National Park Service pub-
lished the results of the BRAVO study in a preliminary
report. A final report will be issued in 2001 (Table 4-11
lists documents and web sites that provide more informa-
tion about air quality in the Big Bend region).
Big Betid Air! Quality
Documents and Web Sites
(Documents available through CICA at www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/clca)
Big Bend National Park Regional Visibility Preliminary Study. Big Bend Air
Quality Workgroup. January 1999. ,
www.nature.nps.gov/ard/parks/blbe/usmexlco.htm (Data from preliminary
study).
Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational (BRAVO) Stooy Con-
ceptual Plan (Draft), Marc Pitchford, Mark Green, and Hampden Kuhns.
November 1997.
www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/bravo (BRAVO study home page).
Table 4-11
A I R
46
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
California-Baja California Intensive Air Quality-
Monitoring Study
In 1996, the workgroup decided that an intensive air qual-
ity study was needed to better understand the air quality
transport process in the California-Baja California region.
Therefore, the workgroup decided to undertake that effort
through a two-phased project.
Phase I
In 1996, EPA and GARB planned to undertake a special
monitoring study to provide the additional information
required to understand ozone transport in the southern Cal-
ifornia region. The study, referred to as the 1997 Southern
California Ozone Study-North American Research Strategy
for Tropospheric Ozone (SCOS-NARSTO), was carried out
between June 16 and October 15, 1997. The workgroup
was able to leverage the efforts of the study by expanding
the study to include the northern Baja California region
within its modeling domain. The study entailed a meteoro-
logical and air quality study that supplemented the air mon-
itoring data collected from the existing ambient air quality
networks in Tijuana and Mexicali. One of the study's many
objectives was to provide information about transport of pol-
lutants in the California-Baja California border region.
The data collected during the field study will be used
to support detailed photochemical modeling and analysis to
obtain a better understanding of the processes involved in
the formation of high ozone concentrations in the southern
California and northern Baja California regions (see
www.arb.ca.gov/research/scos/scos.htm for more details).
In addition to the data collected during the 1997 SCOS
field study, GARB, through its contractor, collected ambient
data in the Calexico, California-Mexicali, Baja California bor-
der region in September 1999. The additional data collec-
tion was a part of the workgroup s effort to conduct a volatile
organic compound source apportionment study and emission
inventory evaluation. The apportionment will be based on
regionally specific source composition profiles developed for
these studies and appropriate profiles used in past studies.
Phase II
In 1999, GARB, its subcontractor, and environmental offi-
cials of Mexico's federal, state, and municipal governments
carried out a study to collect emissions and activity data for
Mexican vehicles that cross the Mexico-California border at
the following crossings: Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, and Calex-
ico. The purpose of the study was to improve the mobile
source emissions inventory along the California-Baja Cali-
fornia border. The study, carried out in August 1999, includ-
ed the testing of 240 Mexican-plated vehicles crossing the
border.
The tests conducted will allow GARB to develop aver-
age gram-per-mile and gram-per-hour emission rates. Sev-
eral variables that may have an impact on motor vehicle
emissions were analyzed, including: (1) emission measure-
ments under load and at idle and (2) characterization of
vehicle age and technology distribution, driver behavior, and
fuel properties. The information will help to establish the
impact of cross-border traffic in the California-Mexico bor-
der region, provide tools for refining the process of fore-
casting future emission trends, and assist the cities of Tijua-
na and Mexicali in the development of strategies for emis-
sion controls. The information also will be used as a tool
in evaluating mobile source inventories for the border region.
Therefore, the first phase of this supplemental study will
provide an ambient hydrocarbon and meteorological data set
for the Baja California area that can be integrated into the
Southern California Ozone Study and that can be used to
estimate uncertainties in the emissions inventory through
source-receptor mathematical models. The primary objec-
tive of the Southern California Ozone Study is to develop
a meteorological and air quality data set that will be used
as input to a regional photochemical air dispersion model.
The second phase of the supplemental study will provide
information about the border region's mobile source inven-
tory. The mobile source inventory is a critical input to the
photochemical model. Data collected during this phase of
the study will be used to validate the mobile source inven-
tory for the border region.
Annex IV Report
At the workgroup meeting held in Mexico City in 1997,
the non-governmental organization Border Ecology Project
prompted the workgroup to evaluate how well Annex IV of
the La Paz Agreement was meeting its objectives. As a result,
the workgroup decided to provide resources to a contractor
to conduct an independent study of Annex IV. The Annex
IV report, entitled Technical Basis for Appendices to Annex TV
47
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
of the La Paz Agreement, had been drafted by late 1998.
After EPA, SEMARNAP, and other interested parties com-
mented on the draft document, a final report was prepared
at the workgroup meeting in December 1999. Although
the report concludes that Annex IV is meeting its objectives,
it also provides recommendations for enhancing Annex IV
by (1) including other sources of air pollution, and (2) pro-
viding additional requirements governing border copper
smelters. At the December 1999 workgroup meeting, the
co-chairs decided that the recommendations would be
addressefl. hi the following manner. First, all recommenda-
tions related to sources other than copper smelters would be
addressed through the ongoing efforts of the workgroup
under Annex V. Second, all recommendations related to
enhancements of Annex IV would be addressed .through a
subgroup on Annex IV. The charge of the subgroup would
be to determine the feasibility of the recommended actions
and to determine whether these recommendations can be
addressed through a mechanism that does not require major
revisions of Annex IV. A copy of the report can be obtained
at the CICA web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica.
Development and Delivery of Workshops in Air Quality
Management for Senior Managers in Mexico
The Air Workgroup recognized the need for a strategic train-
ing program that would deliver basic information desired by
recently appointed senior managers and a need to design a
process for providing timely access to information needed
for effective air quality management. Therefore, through a
collaborative effort among agencies and professionals in Mex-
ico and the United States in designing, developing, and deliv-
ering specialized workshops for Mexican officials responsible
for air quality management, the "Workshop for Air Quality
Management for Senior Managers was created, with a pilot
delivery provided in Mexico City in July 1999 for senior
officials of SEMARNAP.
The strategic training program is directed to senior offi-
cials in government agencies who have limited backgrounds
,in the science and complexities of air pollution and its con-
trol. In general, the senior professionals have extensive back-
grounds in law, finance, business management, public admin-
istration, or other relevant disciplines. As the senior offi-
cials assume responsibility in a government organization
charged with air quality management, they must quickly
acquire sufficient supplemental knowledge to perform effec-
tively. Such officials may hold elected positions with broad
responsibilities and authorities for public affairs or be appoint-
ed managers who have direct authority for environmental
protection.
The primary focus of this program is on air quality
managers in the region of the U.S.-Mexico border. Nev-
ertheless, the program purposely addresses a broader pop-
ulation of managers. For example, several elements of air
quality management in the border region are developed and
implemented by federal agencies. Therefore, officials in
Mexico City who have national perspectives and responsi-
bilities are important program participants. Further, many
important air quality concerns are national, multi-nation-
al, or global in scope - for example energy policies, border
congestion, ozone depletion, and climate change. Conse-
quently, training program participants will include federal,
state and municipal officials from throughout Mexico.
FtfTUllE
PERSPECTIVES
f „ i n
The workgroup will continue to engage in activities aimed
at attaining air quality standards in border communities.
Overall, the workgroup will continue to look for common-
sense solutions that can be applied before study results are
available. "Workgroup activities can be divided into two cat-
egories: ongoing projects and new projects.
The workgroup will continue developing the San Diego
County-Tijuana-Rosarito, Imperial County-Mexicali, and El
Paso County-Ciudad Juarez-Dona Ana County air programs,
integrating the air quality planning and management activ-
ities of the respective on-going air quality management pro-
grams and SIPs. The following specific activities are planned:
• Publication of the air quality program for Tijuana-
Rosarito; the effort, to be completed by SEMARNAP,
will include control strategies for Tijuana-Rosarito.
• Continue to maintain and operate the air monitoring
networks currendy established, with a focus on efforts to
transfer the operation and maintenance of air quality
monitoring networks from EPA-SEMARNAP to local
Mexican authorities (with support from SEMARNAP).
• For the El Paso County-Ciudad Juarez-Dona Ana
County air basin, EPA and SEMARNAP will work with
state and local agencies and community representatives
48
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
to identify basinwide emissions reductions needed to
achieve U.S. and Mexican ozone and carbon monoxide
standards. The workgroup also will continue to work
with the JAC to develop recommendations to improve
air quality in the Paso del Norte area. In addition, EPA
will continue to work with the Paso del Norte Clean
Cities Coalition and its Ozone Action Day Program to
develop a vehicle maintenance outreach program for the
binational air basin. EPA also will continue to work
with UTEP to enhance ozone mapping software and to
develop a web site for the Ozone Action Day Program.
• Continue the implementation of the Emissions Inven-
tory Development Program in Mexico.
New efforts undertaken by the workgroup will include the
following:
• Provide assistance to help the regulated community
comply with the new air quality programs in border
cities.
• Institutionalize air monitoring networks and emis-
sions inventory development and refinement in Mexi-
can border cities.
• Continue to assess air quality in other border cities,
such as Yuma; San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora; and
Tecate.
• Provide emissions data to the public from major
sources in the border region.
• Perform modeling exercises to identify cost-effective
emissions reduction strategies that are of regional benefit.
• Examine potential for binational work to address glob-
al warming and improve energy efficiency.
Specific projects will include:
• EPA will work with the agency's Environmental
Finance Centers to develop a framework for a Paso
del Norte Clean Air Investment Fund, an economic
incentive program that has the potential to achieve
emission reductions at lower cost than traditional
command-and-control strategies.
• INE will develop the Fourth Report on Air Quality
in Mexican Cities (2000), which will include data for
some border cities.
• EPA will work with the American Lung Association
(ALA) to provide asthma management workshops for
asthmatic children in schools in border cities through
the ALA's Open Airways for Schools Program.
Al R
49
-------
fit1
,L;r:t
si*!*'
-------
U,S,-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL
ISSUES AND THEMES
The United States and Mexico recognize die need for close
cooperation in preparing for and preventing haz-
ardous substance incidents in border cities. Before
die LA Paz Agreement was signed, various border
communities had established the foundation for
contingency planning and response to emergencies
that threaten human life and the environment.
Annex II of the La Paz Agreement reinforces those
efforts and establishes a mechanism for planning
and responding to hazardous substance incidents in
the border area, with the support of federal author-
ities of both countries. Annex II of the La Paz
Agreement also provided for the establishment of a
Joint Response Team (JRT). The JRT includes rep-
resentatives from all federal agencies responsible for
chemical emergency prevention, preparedness, and
response, as well as state and local officials. Annex
II further required that die JRT develop a Joint
Contingency Plan (JCP) diat would establish coop-
erative measures for responding effectively to haz-
ardous substance incidents along die inland border.
The Contingency Planning and Emergency
Response (CPER) Workgroup, otherwise
known as the JRT, was created to execute
the provisions of Annex II of die La Paz
Agreement. The workgroup focuses its
efforts on two main goals:
• Increase the preparation and
response capacity for hazardous sub-
stances incidents at the local and
municipal levels.
• Implement die JCP to optimize
the notification systems and the use of resources from
die United States and Mexico.
These two goals demonstrate how the workgroup assists
federal, state, and local officials in responding with greater effec-
tiveness to environmental emergencies and ensuring the safe-
ty of the population and the protection of the environment.
Co-chaired in the United States by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) and in Mexico by die Procu-
raduria Federal de Proteccidn alAmbiente (PROFEPA, or Fed-
eral Attorney General for Environmental Protection), die JRT
develops and implements policies, protocols, and programs to
implement the JCP. The workgroup also partici-
pates in the diverse activities of emergency response
planning, conferences, drills, and odier training ini-
tiatives. In addition, the workgroup provides sup-
port to local communities for developing sister city
contingency plans. The concept of sister city con-
tingency plans was established in 1985 by the JRT.
Recognizing that chemical emergencies affect the
local community first, the JRT members agreed that
subsequent planning efforts would be needed for
the 28 sister cities—14 in Mexico and the adjacent
14 in the United States—that could be affected by
a major hazardous substance release; The sister city
contingency plan program was created to meet that
need.
OBJECTIVES OF THE
CPER WORKGROUP AND
I PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
With die creation of die JRT and the development
of Border XXI, a series of objectives was identi-
fied. The objectives were aimed at obtain-
ing die participation of the three levels
of government and of public and private
organizations that respond to chemical
emergencies in the entire border area. The
objectives are listed in Table 5-1 on the
following page.
Progress Toward Goals
Using the 1996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXI
Program: Framework Document (Framework Document) as the
basis for its efforts, the workgroup has achieved a number
of its objectives.
Annex II
A newly revised Annex II of the La Paz Agreement-was signed
on June 4, 1999 to allow cross-border response to hazardous
substances incidents. Before the adjustment to Annex II,
1 The Agreement Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment in the Border Area was signed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on February 16, 1984.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
1 Objectives
• Implement and complete the following pending activities: JCP; emer-
gency notification system; procedures for quick mobilization of trans-
boundary emergency response personnel and equipment; and a pilot
project with Computer-aided Management of Emergency Operations
(CAMEO), a computer system jointly developed by the U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and EPA.
• Effectively implement the JCP on a regional level in the United
States and on a state and local level in Mexico.
• Improve cross-border notification and communication at all levels
to facilitate fast and effective responses to chemical emergencies
and improve chemical emergency preparedness.
• Exercise and annually test the established procedures in the JCP
for cross-border notification of chemical accidents.
• Work to remove impediments related to legal and political issues,
as well as issues of liability associated with emergency response,
including compensation from responsible parties.
• Promote the creation of and coordination among emergency
response committees, including local emergency planning commit-
tees (LEPC) In the United States, Mexico's comites locales para
ayt/tfa mutua (CLAM, or local committees for mutual assistance),
and binational emergency response committees, to foster ongoing
planning and response awareness, including the development and
Implementation of sister city contingency plans.
• Improve chemical emergency preparedness and response capa-
bilities In each sister city by providing technical assistance in iden-
tifying chemical risks and actions to take and to prepare for and
respond to those risks.
• Integrate prevention of, preparedness for, and response to chem-
ical accidents in sister city contingency plans and develop a strat-
egy for training emergency response personnel and exercising sis-
ter city contingency plans.
• Encourage industrial facilities to make information about use and
storage of chemicals and inventories available to local response offi-
cials and to provide response equipment and assistance in the event
of a chemical emergency.
• Communicate with the public about chemical risk in the area to
raise public awareness and to increase public participation in con-
tingency planning.
Ttt« objectives listed abive may have been paraphrased from thd Frame- [
wortt document. For a rtiore detailed description of the objectives, please
rofw to tttal report. j
Ttw objectives described in this section may be referred to by number. The
numbers are Intended fdr ease of reference only and do not imply order of
importance, I ! j
Table 5-1
cross-border joint responses were not permitted. The revised
Annex II will allow one country, at the request of the other,
to provide assistance and resources to mitigate the effects of
a chemical accident in the border area.
U.S.-Mexico Joint Contingency Plan
The JRT has spent the past two years revising and modifying
the U.S.-Mexico JCP to reflect the institutional and legislative
changes that have occurred in both countries since the original
JCP was signed on July 18, 1985. This new JCP was signed
by environmental officials of both countries on June 4, 1999.
The revised JCP resulted in changes in the binational
notification systems in both countries to ensure timely noti-
fication of the appropriate officials when a chemical accident
occurs in the border area. In the United States, the current
binational notification system was expanded to automatically
send chemical substance incident reports by facsimile to all
appropriate personnel and federal agencies to bring about the
timely and necessary actions to respond to border chemical
emergencies. In Mexico, the Centra de Orientaci6n para la
Atencidn de Emergencias Ambientales (Orientation Center for
Response to Environmental Emergencies) has been established
to facilitate the quick notification of all authorities located
along the U.S.-Mexico border. The center is similar to the
National Response Center (NRQ in the United States. The
NRC, the U.S. national reporting center for chemical acci-
dents, notifies appropriate officials of all reported chemical
accidents, including those that occur in the U.S. border area.
To test the new JCP and the changes in the binational
notification system, drills of the new procedures were held
in each of the U.S. border states; between the cities of Nuevo
Laredo, Tamaulipas and Laredo, Texas; and during several
JRT meetings. The lessons learned are being incorporated
into the planning of future drills, since it has been deter-
mined that the JRT should continually evaluate the bina-
tional notification systems at all levels.
Sister City Contingency Flans
Sister city contingency plans have been signed for six city
pairs (Table 5-2 on the following page). The plans address
international coordination requirements for responses to
emergencies involving hazardous substances. They are the
first step in developing an efficient, coordinated, standard
emergency response to hazardous materials spills that affect
both countries. Plans for the remaining sister cities along
the border will be completed over the next several years.
* With respect to the objectives established by the workgroup in the Framework Document, the implementation of an emergency response center, the
acquisition of mobile equipment units, and the establishment of a communication center in a sister city have not been made final because
they require large resource commitments. These objectives have been modified to better reflect the future goals and direction of the workgroup. The
modified objectives are focused more realistically on improving chemical safety in the border area than were the previous objectives.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
52
-------
U,S,-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
Sister City Contingency Plar
Sister City Pairs
Brownsville, Texas and Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Eagle Pass, Texas and Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Laredo, Texas and Nueyo Laredo, Tamaulipas
San Luis, Arizona and San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora
McAllen, Texas and Reynosa, Tamaulipas :
Nogales, Arizopa and Nogales, Sonora
1
is ;
Signature
pates
May 6, 1997 '
March 25, 1998 ;
December 21, 1998
February 25, 2000
February 29, 2000 ;
. ...March, 17, 2000 ;„;
Table 5-2
While assisting sister city pairs in developing their contin-
gency plans, the JRT identified the need to further research the
problems associated with moving personnel and equipment
across the border during an emergency response. The JRT
established the Subworkgroup on Cross-Border Mobilization of
Personnel and Equipment to evaluate the problem and propose
possible solutions. The subworkgroup provided the following
recommendations to the sister cities: (1) identify insurance needs
and obtain appropriate insurance coverage for those organiza-
tions that respond to cross-border emergencies, (2) regularly
review response procedures and requirements, (3) include local
customs and immigration officials in the sister city planning
group, (4) coordinate response procedures with border officials,
and (5) clearly define the chain of command and exchange key
information about responders. The final report of the sub-
workgroup, tided Summary Report of the Cross-Border Workgroup,
can be accessed at www.epa.gov/cepfolip-bopr.htm.1tmexico.
In addition to the recommendations listed above, the
subworkgroup also proposed several general recommenda-
tions to be implemented by the JRT. The actions taken in
response to those recommendations are described below.
Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Web Site
A web site has been developed to provide information relat-
ed to contingency planning and emergency response in the
border area. Specifically, the web site includes the JCP, a
semi-annual newsletter, reports from all workgroup meetings,
recommendations from all subworkgroups, and workgroup
environmental indicators and work plans. In addition, the
web site provides links to other useful sources at the feder-
al, state, and local levels, as well as a web-based electronic
calender that can be used to publicize federal, state, and local
events and activities related to chemical emergency pre-
paredness and response along the border. The site can be
accessed at www.epa.gov/ceppo/ip-bopr.htm.
ILS.-Mexico Border Contingency Planning Activities
Twice a year, EPA publishes the Semiannual Report on Unit-
ed States-Mexico Border Contingency Planning Activities to pro-
mote exchange of information and coordination among all
appropriate officials and all agencies in the border area. The
report consolidates information about U.S.-Mexico border
joint response and contingency planning by EPA, border states,
and sister cities. The report includes information about joint
response planning meetings and meetings held to develop sis-
ter city plans and joint response exercises and training cours-
es and to identify lessons learned from chemical and envi-
ronmental emergencies.
Joint Response Team Compendium
The JRT has developed a compendium of laws, treaties, agree-
ments, and other materials related to emergency response in
the border region originating at the federal, state, and local
levels in both the United States and Mexico. The document
can be accessed at www.epa.govlceppolip-bopr.htm#mexico.
Further, as recommended by the Subworkgroup on
Cross-Border Mobilization of Personnel and Equipment, the
JRT summarized the functions, roles, and responsibilities of
each of the key agencies represented on the JRT. The sum-
mary was included in the newly revised JCP.
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations
(CAMEO)
Recently, the Computer-aided Management of Emergency
Operations (CAMEO) system was translated into Spanish for
use in the border area. CAMEO is a system of software appli-
cations used widely to plan for and respond to chemical emer-
gencies. The system can access, store, and evaluate informa-
tion critical in developing emergency plans. CAMEO inte-
grates a chemical data base with (1) a method of managing
the data; (2) an air dispersion model; and (3) a mapping capa-
bility. All modules work interactively to share and display crit-
ical information in a timely fashion. This system is a very
useful tool for planning and is especially useful for managing
information related to chemical substances originating from
industrial facilities and transportation corridors. CAMEO train-
ing sessions in English and Spanish have been held, and more
training sessions are planned for the coming year.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
53
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Sister City Assistance
PROFEPA has conducted a study tided Resource Inventories
fir Emergency Response in Mexican Sister Cities. The study
identifies emergency response resources throughout the Mex-
ican border area, including the states of Baja California, Sono-
ra, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Le6n, and Tamaulipas. The
types of emergency response resources highlighted in the study
include: civil protection agencies, fire stations, Red Cross
organizations, local emergency response groups, hospitals, clin-
ics, local government response agencies, and private compa-
nies that have response capabilities. The organizations were
referenced in a geographic information system (GIS), which
will be used by sister cities to develop their sister city con-
tingency plans. General information included in the study
can be found in the environmental indicators section below.
Transportation commodity flow studies have been com-
pleted at various border crossings to provide information about
transboundary shipments of hazardous material, hazardous
waste, and other dangerous materials. The studies include
weighing and physical inspection of trucks (including tires, leaks,
license, insurance, and placards). Compliance with all U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations was also
checked. The studies provide valuable information about die
occurrence and transportation patterns of hazardous materials
widiin border communities. The information is being used by
LEPCs and CLAMs in the development of sister city plans to
guide response actions in the event of an international incident.
Studies have been completed in Brownsville, Texas-
Matamoros, Tamaulipas; McAllen, Texas-Reynosa, Tamauli-
pas; Laredo, Texas-Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; Del Rio,
Texas-Ciudad Acufia, Coahuila; El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez,
Chihuahua; the crossing at Santa Teresa, New Mexico, and
Interstate (I-) highways 1-10 and 1-25, including the city of
Las Cruces, New Mexico. The implementation of the stud-
ies was coordinated with the U.S. Customs Service, DOT,
and the Departments of Safety of Texas and New Mexico.
The information also served as a foundation for conducting
international exercises along the border in Brownsville-Mata-
moros, McAUen-Reynosa, Laredo-Nuevo Laredo, and El
Paso-Ciudad Juarez. Future studies are planned in light of
the construction of new bridges at Los Tomates, Tamauli-
pas-Brownsville; Los Indies, Tamaulipas-Harlingen, Texas;
Solidarity; and Columbia and the completion of the new
bridge at Eagle Pass, Texas-Piedras Negras, Coahuila.
In 1997, San Diego County was awarded a Border XXI
Community Grant in the amount of $39,420 to fund a haz-
ardous waste response project. The project, which was admin-
istered by the San Diego Department of Environmental
Health, aimed to increase cross-border interagency coordi-
nation for chemical spills and related emergencies. It pro-
vided training specific to firefighters and first responders on
how to proceed when addressing chemical emergencies at
the border. The training seminars, conducted in various
cities in Baja California, were designed for four categories
of people who play roles in responding to chemical spills
and emergencies (Table 5-3). The overall success of the proj-
ect has prompted the Department of Environmental Health
to translate the training manuals into Spanish and to tailor
courses to the environmental health laws of Baja California.
Emergency Response Training Seminars
(Chemjlcal Spills)
I , Total,
Number {of
Participants
Course Name
Mexicali and Tijuana
Ensenada, Tecate, and Tijuana
Ensenada, Mexicali, and Tijuana
- Mexicali and Tijuana
145
138
108 ,
55
First Resporider Awareness
First Responder Operations
Emergency Management
Incident Commander
Table 5-3
To assist sister cities in risk management planning and
prevention efforts, risk management plan (RMP) training was
conducted through bilingual workshops to familiarize facili-
ty workers and preparedness and response personnel with
EPA's Clean Air Act Amendments, Section 112(r). The work-
shops were held in Brownsville, El Paso, Laredo, Del Rio,
and McAllen. The bilingual seminars assisted local officials
and managers of manufacturing, production, and water treat-
ment facilities; propane dealers; ammonia dealers; and per-
sonnel of other facilities in preparing RMPs to reduce the
likelihood and severity of accidental chemical releases that
could cause harm to border residents and the environment.
EPA has provided grants to sister cities for sister city plan
development and emergency response preparedness. The grants
also identify specific equipment to be lent to die key hazardous
materials (HAZMAT) planners and responders in Mexico so
that communication between die sister cities can be exercised
and improved. EPA has arranged for grant funding to the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to support that
agency's border planning and response activities and arrange
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
54
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
for HAZMAT training in sister cities and to the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control for emergency
response equipment in the border city of Calexico.
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
Types of Environmental Indicators
D
D
EL
PRESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
The fundamental purpose of the CPER Workgroup is to
increase municipal and local capacity to prepare for and
respond to hazardous material emergencies and optimize the
use of U.S. and Mexican resources. The environmental indi-
cators discussed below describe the initial steps the work-
group is taking to measure the progress and success of its
efforts. The workgroup is further refining and revising the
indicators to better reflect improvements in chemical safety,
NUMBER AND LOCATION OF FACILITIES IN THE BORDER AREA
POSING RISK THAT HAVE COORDINATED EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PLANS
Facilities that use or produce hazardous chemicals run the
risk of chemical accidents that could affect nearby com-
munities. These facilities, therefore, are the first line of
defense in mitigating the effects of a chemical accident,
should one occur. An emergency response plan provides
communities with initial protection from the effects of a
chemical accident.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require facili-
ties that pose hazardous materials risks to develop RMPs and
submit them to EPA. The plans will be placed in a com-
puter data base that the public can access and will include
information about the amount and location of hazardous
chemicals at the facility, a history of the chemical accidents
that have occurred at the facility in the past five years, and
a description of the worst-case accident that could occur at
the facility. In addition, Mexico is developing a data base
of information about industries that pose a chemical risk to
the local community. The information can also be includ-
ed hi the CAMEO system in sister cities.
This indicator covers those sectors that distribute or store
liquid petroleum gas or that generate or produce (as a prod-
uct or by-product), process, or refine any of the following:
electricity, chemicals, metallic and non-metallic minerals, veg-
etables, wood products or wood derivatives, food, or textiles.
Tables 5-4 and 5-5 list for the United States and Mexico,
respectively, the number of facilities in the border area pos-
ing risk that have RMPs in place.
The following information pertains to the United States:
City Number Number
and State of Facilities of Facilities with RMPs
1998 1999 1999 ,
Brownsville, Texas
Galexico, California
Columbus, New Mexico
; Del Rio, Texas
Douglas, Arizona
Eagle Pass, Texas
El Paso, Texas
Laredo, Texas
,, McAllen, Texas
Naop, Arizona
Npgales, Arizona -;•
Presidio, Texas V
San Diego, California
Sari Luis, Arizona
40 '::.':
7 •'.
•"•--:'.:
' 5
•:'-:.: ?:•'(-
•"''. 3
: 25 .-'"':
8
.. 46
.'"" •- ;
• .:, 7; -
.-.'• i :'••_:
31
'..,;-
45,
T -;;--
.';''':•'-[•-'•
"."-"•5: '
3
: , 4 ,
,42
- 14 -•'-'•
, 47 :
•••--.;• 6." • -
1 .-•
37
;: :';;:.-- 5 ,
',.'•••••'. x •. . .
•:.--'• . , X .'••;•
: x • ;
' ' : ' X
',"" '-. :--. ".•• . 1 . : " " -'-'
.:.-' 21 •
.'•'-""''•.• 9 •"• :
--.-•'• ." •--•• 5
'"--••.'' ' v ''•-•"
, . ', ' .'-' X ; .- .- .,- ,
'';•.•- . --: •••:'• : x •.''.'-
'••• •-.•"' -••••'" x • - -.. ;
•--;;, ' ;: -;: e'
-.' . • . -..••'"
- No facilities are present in those cities.
x No RMPs were submitted in those cities.
- Information is currently, being collected.
Further research and analyses are being completed on the BMP data, and a
more in-depth report will be available soon.
Table 5-4
The following information pertains to Mexico:
State Facilities Posing Risk That Have
Emergency Response Plans in Place
Baja California
Chihuahua
: Cbahuila,
.NuevoLeon
Sonora
Tamaulipas
• .- 'Total. ';. v.v:
• " . -.-.. -..• : : -7 ; "
'•"••..-:. , '•' - z ._'."-•
• : ' - ' ' • 1 •
•• .-.-•.. : / '-'.--. ° : .' ' . '
-:• •••'." •••:-.' •". - " .. -" • 2 .-;;•.'• ' •
..."'•'"•'.'• ."•'.: 6" - - '. ' , ••
- :''. \ ..V •',•:• : -.•;:'•• •'«'. '-..--' ;' •.' '
Table 5-5
CONTINGENCY PLANNIN8 AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
55
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
D
NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS CAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO
CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES ALONG THE BORDER BY STATE AND
LOCALITY OR MUNICIPALITY
When local communities lack the capability to respond to
chemical accidents, state or federal responders must deploy
to such accidents, resulting in potential delays in mitigat-
ing the incidents and preventing additional harm to the
community and the environment.
The workgroup is collaborating with sister cities to
identify resource needs (for example, equipment, person-
nel, and funding) and chemical risks. Using the informa-
tion gathered, the workgroup will help determine additional
needs. Provided below is information about the number
of organizations that will be able to help respond in an
emergency.
The information is gathered from a study tided Resource
Inventories far Emergency Response in Mexican Sister Cities.
The study identifies emergency response resources available
throughout the Mexican border area (Table 5-6).
1" i I ' :
State Organizations That Provide ]
Assistance During Emergencies ;
Baja California
Chihuahua
Coahuila
Nuevb Leon
Sonora
Tamaulipas
Total
' .,'• - '' ' -, 67' ••••,;••. : ' :..,.-• ."
. •• . : • .;•' -4':. ••::- ••; .•;;•'.. .
r , ,, ..•.-. ••••go" •. - • - -_••--•• •;. "-
.. . ' . .• o -•• '•• •'•• '."•• •---•
; • If-., ' , - '. . .;-- ... L
" . -•';•. 53. •'•,.-' '•-..----••
- . - ' • • 266. : '.-.'•'. . • , .
Table 5-6
The types of emergency response resources highlighted in
this study include civil protection agencies, fire stations, Red
Cross organizations, local emergency response groups, hospitals,
clinics, local government response agencies, and private compa-
nies having response capabilities.
Table 5-7 provides information about the emergency response
resources of U.S. sister cities. Table 5-8 on the following page
provides a breakdown of information by Mexican sister cities
and organizations.
'• - •• ! 1
State/City • Fire Stations HAZMAT Teams Ambulances American Hospitals/Clinics Total
: - Red Cross i
Texas I ' : ,., ,....;:,, ; . '. I :! . , j . . .'
Brownsville
McAllen
Laredo
Eagle Pass
Del Rio
Presidio
El Paso
Totals
8
6
10
2
3
1
27
57
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
8
,1 ;
'• 7 .•-.''•
4
1
1 '.
1
3
18
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
5
3
4
3
2
1
0
13'
26
14
19
21
6 ]
7
2
45
114
Accurate, comprehensive information about the emergency response resources in Arizona currently is being compiled
Accurate, comprehensive information about the emergency response resources in California currently is being compiled
Table 5-7
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
56
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
State/
Municipality
Civil
Protection
and Fire
Stations
Mexican
Red
Cross
Baja California - 67 Response Organizations
Local Hospitals Local Private
Emergency and Government Companies
Response Clinics Response Having
Groups Agencies Response
Capabilities
Ensenada
Mexicali
Rosario
Tecate
Tijuana
5 ' '
21
1 .,
0
9
- .- 0
1
- ; ,1
1 ,
i
0
2
0
0
4
• 2
1
.' o •-;...
2 " .
1 . .
.'.' , . 2
. ' ' 5
. . . 0 .
--;. '. '1 ' • -
2
0
2
0
1
2
Chihuahua - 44 Response Organizations
Giudad Juarez
Praxedis el Porvenir
Puerto Palomas
Ojinaga
9
0
1
1
i
0
o ...
1
1
.0
O
- - '1 ' v
' 8 .
.1
- 1
: 2 •'.-'
' .13 ...
0 • ,' '
, . . -i - .
0
. '. 3
0. . .
. ;' -•"••. o-- ., :- "
0
Coahuila - 36 Response Organizations
Ciudad Acuna
Piedras Negras
B
Colombia f
Nuevo Leon - 0 Response Organizations
Sonora - 72 Response Organizations
Agua Prieta :
Cananea .
Imuris
Magdalena de Kino
Naco
Nogales
San Luis Rio Colorado
Sonora
2
3
0
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
3
0
0
0
5
1
2
3
6
0
3
1
3
2
0
3
3
2
3
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tamaulipas - 53 Response Organizations '
Matamoros
Miguel Aleman
Nuevo Laredo
Reynosa
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
4
2
5 -
5
7
0
4
4
2
0
1
6
Table 5-8
NUMBER OF SISTER CITIES THAT HAVE CONTINGENCY PLANS
Sister cities must be prepared to respond quickly and effec-
tively when a chemical accident occurs to mitigate devastat-
ing human health and environmental effects. Although the
cities are in different countries, they share a common border
and therefore must work together to combine their resources
and protect their communities from the risks associated with
chemical accidents. The sister city contingency plan prepares
sister cities for such accidents and helps them to identify ways
to reduce risks and prevent chemical accidents.
A sister city contingency plan is a document that describes
the organization of available actions, people, services, and
resources for response during a disaster. The plan is based
on risk identification, available human and material resources,
the level of community preparedness, and local response capa-
bilities. It also establishes the hierarchical and functional
structure of the authorities and organizations working dur-
ing the emergency in the context of the relationship between
two border cities. Emergency planners and responders can
take preventive measures to reduce risks posed by the haz-
ards identified in their plans. To date, six sister city con-
tingency plans have been developed (Table 5-9).
Sister Cities That Have Contingency Plans
Brownsvjlle, Texas-Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Eagle Pass, Texas-Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Laredo, Texas-Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
Nogales, Arizona-Nogales, Sonora
San Luis, Arizona-San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora
McAlfen, Texas-Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Sister /Cities That Are Developing Contingency Plans
Dei Rio, Texas-Ciudad Acufia, Coahuila
El Paso,. Texas-Giudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Table 5-9
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
57
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
NUMBER OF BORDER AREA ACCIDENTS OF RECORD PER YEAR,
CLASSIFIED BY TYPE, FREQUENCY, AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
The types of accidents that will be measured by this indi-
cator include any dangerous event that (1) occurs as a result
of the handling of hazardous substances, such as spills,
leaks, fires, or explosions; and (2) causes temporary or per-
manent damage to the environment, human health, or prop-
erly. In the United States, the information is captured on
the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS),
which records the type and quantity of the chemical
involved; the date, time, and location of the accident; the
date and time of the response efforts; and the type of
response and mitigation effort.
ERNS is a comprehensive database of oil spill and haz-
ardous substance release reports. It should be noted, how-
ever, that the ERNS database contains information about
all accidents that have been reported in the sister cities,
regardless of the nature or quantity of the substance released.
Some releases may be very small or may involve relatively
benign chemicals and therefore pose little risk to the bor-
der area. In addition, there may be a number of notifica-
tions for some releases because data are gathered from many
sources. Therefore, the actual number of releases is likely
lower than the raw data indicate. To date, none of the
incidents has posed an extensive transboundary risk that
required the activation of the JCP. The JRT currently is
analyzing and evaluating this information to include only
chemical accidents pertinent to this indicator. Table 5-10
lists the number of accidents in ERNS for U.S. sister cities
(1996 through 1998 data).
Since 1996, PROFEPA has relied on a registry that
records the number of accidents per year along the Mexi-
can border that require attention and classifies the accidents
by type, frequency, and substance. Table 5-11 lists the acci-
dents recorded in that registry (1996 through 1998 data).
Number of Chemical Accidents in ERNS
for U.S. Sister Cities per Year
State/City
Number of Accidents
California
Calexlco
San Diego
Arizona
Douglas
Naco
Nogales
San Luis
New Mexico
Columbus
Texas
Brownsville
Del Rio
Eagle Pass
El Paso
Laredo
McAIlon
Presidio
Total
*
*
-
, - -
-
-
-
10
-
1
14
9
2
2
38
it
*
-
-
... *
*
-
28
-
-
33
9
-
-
7O
*
*
-
. -
'
*
-
18
1
48
9
1
-
77
- No accidents have boon reported.
* Iflfocmalion colfoctod \k inaccurate, and further analysis is required. [
» Information is being collected. , j
'!•' ! ! ' ' • ; • i •
Number of Chemical Accidents j ] !
for Mexican Border States per Year I
State 1996 j j 1997 1998 |
Baja California
Chihuahua
Coahuila
Nuevp Le6n
Sonora
Tamaulipas
Total
9
•'•••' '-8'-v';'";
' -. -,..-,•: -^ ,.>
• .-• :°
. ' ' • . 7 '•; '. ' '•
. .. '. : g: •.. . .
31
••-.•• '16. i,. ....
• '.• •- 7 ;'" -.
• •' .•"'"' "7 ' " ":
. -' P •"- , '
:'- • 6 '.-'•"•• ,'.
• •• ••."-'.> -/^
39
• ': : e
-"-- ,' 3 : -..' -
.; • ' 1
•'••• '. 4
'•'.' : a -"•'•.' .
V;o. -.•<:?./. •-'••.
.-.;, T.JMI "•. ,'
Table 5-11
The United States, through its National Response Cen-
ter (NRC), manages a registry of emergencies that occur
along its own border.
«S== *i. OTHER NOTABLE ACTIVITIES
" AND ACHIEVEMENTS
The workgroup successfully completed the following
activities:
• Promoted emergency preparedness in local border
communities through a series of workshops in the bor-
der area.
Table 5-10
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
58
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
• Conducted and distributed CAMEO training to the
organizations in charge of emergency response from all
the sister cities.
• Promoted the active participation of the border indus-
trial sector in the various activities related to the work-
group.
• Promoted the development of sister city contingency
plans and Binational Emergency Planning Committees.
fSSf -~ g
FUTURE 4
I PERSPECTIVES
In the future, the workgroup will continue to focus on the
following activities:
• Continue to promote the creation of local joint plans
for the remaining sister city pairs.
• Periodically carry out binational notification exercises
in die sister cities.
• Plan for emergency responses related to the trans-
portation of hazardous substances along the border.
• Revise the environmental indicators as information is
collected and analyzed.
• Better identify and prevent potential polluting inci-
dents.
• Continue to increase the preparation and response
capacity of local and municipal emergency responders.
• Improve communication from the workgroup to appro-
priate federal, state, and local officials on programming
of events, sharing of experiences derived from drills con-
ducted, and planning of efforts for emergency response.
Among the challenges that the workgroup faces in the com-
ing years are:
• Increased chemical safety risks resulting from increased
transportation, handling, and use of hazardous substances
in the border area.
• Scarce resources in border cities to support the hir-
ing, training, equipping, and retaining of emergency
responders.
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
59
-------
._*
f.
'i * < f,
,» Mi*«;
.JfSgTv^-
fc, *„,<>*• ""
.
-^41-Wfcv, - i
^" ''*'
, II**- -,
« **- ^ ^T-E "Ba,^
^1 iCSJSf^* -
— JJ~ tW-**^
^Sfj r*JI 'Was^SS t
- -v - ^jii
t*^^.
,«^-^ f
&f - *^Uf4r*5t
?-,'4«fc®sr^v-
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
f OVERVIEW OE THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES
* AND THEMES
The Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance "Workgroup
(Enforcement Workgroup) was created to strength-
en binational cooperation between institutions in
Mexico and those in the United States that are
responsible for enforcing their respective environ-
mental laws.
The workgroup seeks to fulfill the objectives
of the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program through
environmental compliance and enforcement activ-
ities throughout the border areas of both coun-
tries, respecting each country's own resources and
sovereignty.
In establishing the workgroup, both countries
recognized that effective enforcement of and com-
pliance with environmental laws in the U.S.-Mex-
ico border area are essential to ensuring the accom-
plishment of each country's environmental goals,
as well as preventing transboundary environmen-
tal problems.
}• OBJECTIVES OF THE ENFORCEMENT '
WORKGROUP AND PROGRESS
h TOWARD GOALS
Since 1992, the Procuraduria Federal de Proteccidn al Ambi-
ente (PROFEPA, or Mexico's Federal Attorney General for
Environmental Protection) and the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) have collaborated — along with other
entities and organizations involved in environmental protec-
tion - to promote compliance with the law as a way of solv-
ing shared environmental problems.
Over the years, federal, state, regional, and local insti-
tutions on both sides of the border have cooperated on a
variety of issues affecting the environment. The workgroup
has sought to strengthen that effort by establishing sub-
workgroups of federal, state, and local environmental offi-
cials in the United States and Mexico. The subworkgroups
focus on strengthening enforcement cooperation, ensuring
the efficient use of government resources, and helping the
two countries and the border states to develop common
enforcement and compliance priorities.
The workgroup developed a plan that addresses seven pri-
ority areas. Since 1996, the workgroup has made significant
progress in fulfilling the objectives in its seven priority areas.
The projects that implement the workgroup objectives and
priority areas are discussed in more detail below. As defined
in the 1996 U.S.-Mexico BorderXXIProgram: Frame-
work Document (Framework Document), the seven
workgroup objectives are presented in Table 6-1.
Cooperative
Enforcement
Compliance
Objectives
•. Continue efforts to achieve enforcement and com-
pliance with environmental requirements in the border
area. ' : -': . . • -••'...•.• . : : '
• Establish and enhance networks of cooperation
among the various federal, state, and local agencies on
both sides of the border that are involved in environ-
mental enforcement and compliance. -'•;..
• As a complement to a strong program of law enforce-
ment, encourage voluntary compliance by industry
through environmental auditing, :the use of clean tech-
nologies, the use of less contaminating raw materials,
and other strategies.
• Develop similar systems for reporting on environ-
mental enforcement and compliance, in accordance with
the legal framework of each party.
• Promote mechanisms that enhance the evaluation-of
compliance with environmental law.
• Promote pollution prevention as a mechanism for
solving compliance problems.
• Continue to promote public participation within the
legal framework of each party.
the objectives listed above may have been paraphrased from the Framework
Document^ For-a more detailed description of,the objectives, please refer to
that report. .
The objectives described in this section may be referred to by number. The
numbers are intended for ease of reference only and do not imply order of
importance. . -
Table 6-1
Progress Toward Goals
Cooperative Environmental Enforcement and Compliance
Strategies
The workgroup is developing cooperative enforcement and
compliance strategies to improve coordination among local,
state, and federal agencies on both sides of the border.
To promote that goal, the workgroup has established sub-
workgroups along the border. The first three subworkgroups
were established for Texas-New Mexico-Chihuahua, Califor-
nia-Baja California, and Arizona-Sonora. In 1998, two addi-
tional subworkgroups were established, one for Texas-Coahuila
and the other for Texas-Nuevo Le6n-Tamaulipas. Along the
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
entire border, subworkgroups are now working to fulfill the
objectives of the Border XXI Program; they will develop con-
crete enforcement activities that will control and reduce pol-
lution and protect the environment and its resources.
The subworkgroups meet throughout the year to share
information about border enforcement actions and to iden-
tify and develop cooperative enforcement and compliance
actions to address common priorities.
In addition to forming subworkgroups along the entire
border, the Enforcement "Workgroup has worked with other
Border XXI workgroups, state and local governments, the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC),
Mexico's Comm6n National del Agua (CNA, or National
Water Commission), and customs and transportation offi-
cials to coordinate the targeting of enforcement and com-
pliance activities and to institute joint training and capaci-
ty-building programs.
Among the cooperative enforcement and compliance
activities performed by the regional subworkgroups, the
prominent activities in which binational cooperation was
involved included the development of enforcement strategies
related to investigations and inspections. For example, the
subworkgroups, working with the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Workgroup, use national data bases to establish potential
enforcement targets to which to apply legislation related to
the illegal transportation of hazardous wastes. The sub-
workgroups are also exchanging information about recycling,
treatment, and disposal facilities in the United States and
Mexico. The shared information allows each respective coun-
try to determine whether hazardous waste is being properly
and legally recycled or treated and disposed of.
Likewise, the subworkgroups have made efforts to
strengthen institutional cooperation with the United States
Department of Transportation, Mexico's Secretaria de Comu-
nicaciones y Transportes (SCT, or Secretariat of Communica-
tion and Transportation), Mexico's Secretaria de Hacienda y
Cridito PAblico (SHCP, or Secretariat of Treasury and Pub-
lic Credit), and Mexico's Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento
Industrial (SECOFI, or Secretariat of Commerce and Indus-
trial Development). The purpose of this work has been to
address issues related to the use of labels and identification
placards on shipping containers used for hazardous waste.
Cooperation in Specific Enforcement Cases
The workgroup has also worked to cooperate on specific
enforcement cases that have transboundary implications. To
advance this process, EPA, PROFEPA, and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice (DOJ) have begun identifying various mech-
anisms to facilitate coordination of specific matters. Coor-
dination will focus specifically on matters related to law
enforcement and compliance with environmental standards.
In 1997, EPA, PROFEPA, DOJ, and the Canadian
authorities analyzed legal issues pertaining to the exchange of
information. The analysis was completed under the auspices
of the North American Law Enforcement Workgroup in sup-
port of enforcement cooperation. The effort has provided a
solid basis for developing guidelines for the exchange of infor-
mation within the Enforcement Workgroup. In 1998, PRO-
FEPA, EPA, and DOJ agreed to issue a joint communica-
tion to inform field personnel and the subworkgroup mem-
bers about international and binational mechanisms that assist
law enforcement officials in Mexico and the United States in
obtaining information that might help them better cooper-
ate on case-specific matters. Currently, that communication
is in draft form, and it should be completed by late 2000.
A variety of specific cases resulted from binational coop-
eration within the subworkgroups. Currently, the subwork-
group members are cooperating on two hazardous waste cases
involving the improper shipment of hazardous wastes from
Mexico into the United States.
In another case, the state of California worked with the
California-Baja California Subworkgroup on a case involv-
ing the Alco Pacffico firm in Tijuana, Baja California. In
that case, the Alco Pacffico owner fled to the United States
after PROFEPA closed his lead smelter for serious environ-
mental violations. The state of California sued both the
generator and the owner for violating California environ-
mental laws. The fines from that case were used to help
remediate the environmental damage caused by Alco Pacffi-
co. In the case of Ejido de Jacume in Tecate, Baja Cali-
fornia (an ejido is community-owned land), subworkgroup
members representing EPA, California's Integrated Waste
Management Board, the U.S. Border Patrol, and the U.S.
Customs Service cooperated with PROFEPA and the Servi-
cio de Aduanas (Mexico's Customs Service) to remove tires
that had been illegally dumped in Mexico. The tires were
returned to the United States. In another investigation, the
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
62
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
United States and Mexico cooperated extensively to deter-
mine whether the transboundary movement and use of
enhanced soil that had been imported into Mexico complied
with the environmental laws of both countries.
Another example of binational cooperation was the EPA-
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
used oil border initiative at the Ysleta port of entry in El Paso,
Texas, which resulted in enforcement actions for illegal impor-
tation of hazardous waste. Cooperation between TNRCC and
PROFEPA also resulted in the recycling in El Paso of 50 tons
of aluminum slag, which had been stored in the state of Chi-
huahua. In addition, the workgroup has held informational
meetings with Mexican transporters on transportation require-
ments for the disposal of hazardous waste. The workgroup
also has cooperated with Mexican transportation and health
officials on shipping labels and poster requirements for the
transportation of hazardous waste and materials.
Information Sharing on the Results of Enforcement and
Compliance Activities
EPA and PROFEPA also share information about their enforce-
ment and compliance activities. Such exchange helps the work-
group better inform the public about activities in the border
region. To help achieve this objective, the workgroup has
been tracking compliance and enforcement indicators identi-
fied by PROFEPA and EPA. The workgroup members have
also shared information about Mexican annual reports, includ-
ing descriptions of more serious cases of violations. These
indicators are discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
The subworkgroups also have exchanged information
about specific environmental problems, such as the cases
discussed in the previous sections. With such information
available, workgroup members are better able to target
enforcement and compliance efforts to areas in which there
are serious threats to human health and the environment or
in which a strong enforcement presence is needed to deter
future violators.
Workgroup members have cooperated extensively on
a binational basis to ensure compliance assistance to the
transportation sector. The subworkgroups have held vari-
ous meetings with Mexican transporters to provide infor-
mation about legal requirements in both countries, partic-
ularly those related to insurance policies and financial assur-
ance for transporters of hazardous waste.
Training
EPA and PROFEPA have supported a cooperative training pro-
gram designed to build institutional capacity in various aspects
of environmental enforcement and compliance. In the Unit-
ed States, the work is done with the states, with the support
of the Western States Project and the Southern Environmen-
tal Enforcement Network The courses are designed for fed-
eral, state, and local officials involved in environmental enforce-
ment and compliance matters. Inspectors from the U.S. and
Mexican customs services have participated in the courses and
have received training on the laws and regulations governing
the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, ozone-
depleting substances, chemicals, and pesticides and illegal traf-
ficking in flora and fauna. Since 1996, the subworkgroups
have participated in and staged various training courses in both
English and Spanish on a variety of topics, including:
• Principles of environmental enforcement
• Pretreatment inspections
• Field investigations and sampling
• Hazardous waste laws and definitions
• Transboundary hazardous waste and chlorofluorocar-
bon (CFC) shipments
• Comparative analysis of U.S. and Mexican legal
structures
• Illegal trafficking in flora and fauna
• Air and pesticide enforcement issues
These courses have trained hundreds of government per-
sonnel, along with a significant number of people in the pri-
vate and nongovernmental fields.
Technical and Legal Consultations
EPA and PROFEPA have worked to improve technical and
legal consultations to build enforcement and compliance capac-
ity. EPA and PROFEPA, with the assistance of the Envi-
ronmental Law Institute and participation by nongovernmental
organizations, sponsored a workshop on the legal challenges
of transboundary environmental enforcement. EPA and PRO-
FEPA also exchanged information about methods used to
determine the amount of sanctions for infractions of the law.
In addition, in 1988, PROFEPA officials observed a demon-
stration of EPA's economic benefit model, or BEN. BEN is
a computer program used to determine how much a violator
profited by not complying with environmental kws. BEN is
used to calculate an appropriate penalty, which helps to ensure
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
63
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
that a violator does not gain an economic advantage over com-
petitors who comply with the law.
Environmental Auditing and Voluntary Compliance
Programs
EPA and PROFEPA have worked together to promote volun-
tary environmental compliance programs and environmental
auditing and pollution prevention techniques in the border area.
Several efforts undertaken between 1996 and 1999 have
produced tangible results in this area. In the 1996-1997
period, as part of PROFEPA's Industria Limpia (Clean Indus-
try) program, 18 maquiladoras performed environmental
audits, and another 30 formalized their action plans. In
March 1997, TNRCC, PROFEPA, and EPA met in El Paso,
Texas to present their voluntary compliance programs. In
September 1997, EPA and PROFEPA participated in a con-
ference in Washington D.C. on environmental auditing and
voluntary compliance programs for the industrial sectors.
EPA also produced a video on the use of environmental
auditing as a tool to assure compliance and to identify oppor-
tunities to prevent environmental pollution.
In 1998, EPA and PROFEPA developed and distributed
bilingual materials promoting compliance in the maquilado-
ra industry. The two agencies also worked together to dis-
seminate information about PROFEPA's Programa de Audi-
torla Ambiental (Environmental Audit Program).
In 1999, EPA and PROFEPA sponsored the Environ-
mental Auditing and Pollution Prevention in the Maquilado-
m industry: Toward a Public/Private Partnership Conference.
The conference helped establish a public-private partnership
focused on improving environmental and economic perform-
ance in the maquiladora industry. The conference provided
a forum for dialogue between representatives of maquiladoras,
senior officials from U.S. and Mexican federal and state envi-
ronmental agencies, and environmental groups on how vol-
untary programs and environmental auditing can help pre-
vent pollution and achieve environmental compliance.
Creation of the Border XXI Wildlife Enforcement
Subworkgroup
In Mexico, PROFEPA has jurisdiction over the monitoring of
compliance with laws that apply to environmental pollution
prevention and control, natural resources, forestry, terrestrial
flora and fauna, and fishing. However, in the United States,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state fish and game
departments have jurisdiction over wildlife, flora, and fauna
issues. Cooperation between the United States and Mexico on
these issues currendy occurs outside the Border XXI process.
Consequently, at the 1998 National Coordinators meet-
ing (EPA and Mexico's Secretaria de Media Ambiente, Recur-
sos Naturales, y Pesca [SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Envi-
ronment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries] serve as Nation-
al Coordinators), the workgroup agreed to invite represen-
tatives of the fish and game departments of the U.S. bor-
der states to workgroup and subworkgroup meetings in an
attempt to broaden workgroup activities to address wildlife,
flora, and fauna issues. The workgroup has decided to assess
this effort in the development of the next border program.
ENVIRONMENTAL
- INDICATORS1
•> Hr-Mli*.™
EPA and PROFEPA have worked together to exchange infor-
mation about indicators used in each country that address
the performance of their environmental enforcement and
compliance programs.
Both the United States and Mexico collect information
about the number of inspections conducted in the border
area. This enforcement activity measures the deterrent pres-
ence of regulatory agencies in the border area. Conducting
facility inspections is one of the basic enforcement measures
used to assure compliance.
In addition to inspection numbers, PROFEPA collects
the following information:
• Facilities that were totally or partially closed
because of environmental infractions
• Facilities at which minor infractions or
no infractions were identified
The classifications of the Indicators have been omitted from this section because the indicators for the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Work-
aroup do not lend themselves to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) framework for organizing indicators
(s«e Appendix 1). For example, inspections are not necessarily carried out in response to environmental and natural resource pressures. Some inspections
are carried out even when there is no indication of an enviromental problem.
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
64
-------
U,S,-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 199(5-2000
• Facilities that were fined as a result of
environmental violations
Information that EPA collects includes data on the num-
ber of enforcement actions by federal and state-delegated
programs in the border area, penalties, amounts collected as
a result of those actions, and the amount of pollution reduced
as a result of those actions.2
PROCURADURfA FEDERAL DE PROTECCION AL AMBIENTE
COMPLIANCE INDICATOR:
NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED IN THE BORDER AREA
This indicator represents one of the basic surveillance activ-
ities performed by Mexican environmental authorities to
ensure compliance with environmental standards (Table 6-2).
Mexico: Number of Inspections in the Border Area
Year : Number of Inspections
1996
1997
1998
3,323
3,127
"_• ""2,368'
Table 6-2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COMPLIANCE INDICATOR:
NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PERFORMED IN THE BORDER AREA
This indicator measures the deterrence presence of regulatory
agencies in the border region. Conducting facility inspections
is one of the basic enforcement measures used to assure com-
pliance. Many factors can affect the number of inspections
conducted, including the number of facilities to be inspected,
the amount of enforcement resources, and general compliance
rates among regulated facilities (Tables 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5).
United States: Clean Air Act Inspections
of Federally Reportable Facilities in the Border Area "
Total Number of
Facilities in 1998
Percentage of Facilities
Inspected by States and EPA
"Federally reportable facilities" include (a) facilities that emit more than
10Q tons per year; (b) facilities with actual emissions less than 100 tons,
but with potential to emit more than 100 tons per year; and (c) facilities
emitting hazardous pollutants or that are "new sources" of pollution.
Table 6-3
United States: Total Number of Inspections
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDF) in the Border Area
Number of TSDFs
in 1998
Percentage of Facilities
Inspected by States and EPA
Table 6-4
United States: Clean Water Act Total Number of
Inspections of Active Major Dischargers in the Border Area "
State Total Number of Active Percentage of Facilities
Major Dischargers Inspected by States and EPA
in 1998
Arizona
California
New Mexico
Texas
20
63
38
100
67
61
25
94
36
77
.95
100
46
Total
Average
National
"Active major dischargers" is a term used to characterize facilities, or
dischargers, under the U.S. National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES). Major dischargers are determined on the basis of the
quantities discharged and the sensitivities of the receiving waters.
Table 6-5
EPA's information is taken from data obtained from EPA's Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) database and on revisions of those data Infor-
mation represents EPA's fiscal year - October to September - and includes actions in all counties within 100 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexico border Unless
otherwise noted, any discrepancies between these figures and the figures in the 7997 United States-Mexico Border Environmental Indicators Report (1997
Indicators Report) are the result of the date the data were obtained and the fact that the data in the 1997 Indicators Report represented the calendar year.
In the 7997 Indicators Report, EPA reported on the number of supplemental environmental projects (SEP) that occurred in the border area. A SEP is
an environmentally beneficial project agreed to in an enforcement case settlement that goes beyond complying with regulations in exchange for penalty
reductions. In this report, EPA is not using SEPs as a compliance indicator, since SEPs are entered into voluntarily by a defendant and do not neces-
sarily measure the deterrence value of the U.S. border enforcement program.
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
65
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
PROCURADURfA FEDERAL DE PROTECC16N AL AMBIENTE
COMPLIANCE INDICATOR:
NUMBER OF CLOSURES AND PENALTIES IN THE BORDER AREA
These indicators measure the surveillance activities and sanc-
tions of the Mexican authorities in the border area in the
effort to control environmental pollution and protect the
environment.
During 1996, PROFEPA carried out 3,323 inspection
visits in the border area, of which 59 resulted in partial clo-
sures, 18 in total closures, and 2,545 in identification of
minor infractions. During 701 inspections, no infractions
were indentified. As a result of the inspections, 2,622 instal-
lations were fined. Regarding compliance with environmental
standards by the maquildadora industry, PROFEPA noted a
reduction in serious infractions hi that sector, from 8.31 per-
cent in 1993 to 2.32 percent in 1996, and a decrease of 72
percent in closures of installations. In 1997, PROFEPA car-
ried out 3,127 inspection visits in the border area, which
resulted in 61 partial closures, 21 total closures, and identi-
fication of 2,469 minor infractions. During 572 inspections,
no infractions were identified.
During the period, 2,551 installations were fined.
Regarding compliance with environmental standards by the
maquiladora industry, PROFEPA noted a minor increase in
major infractions in that sector, from 2.32 percent in 1996
to 2.6 percent in 1997. In 1998, PROFEPA carried out
2,308 inspection visits in the border area, which resulted in
37 partial closures, 14 total closures, and identification of
1,814 minor infractions. During 443 inspections, no infrac-
tions were identified. Fines totaling $4,972,956 Mexican
pesos were assessed (Tables 6-6 and 6-7).
Mexico: Number of Closures in the Border Area
O .
Closures
Total
Partial
18
59
21
61
14
37
A partial closure is ap administrative order by which a portion; of a '
tourist project or activity is terminated or suspended. A total ; closure is,
an administrative ordbr by which an entire industrial or tourist project or
activity is terminated or suspended. j ,,
Table 6-6
Mexico: PROFEPA's Indicators ;
Year Number of Total!! Partial Minor i
Inspections Closures Closures Infractions
1996
1997
1998
Total
3,323
3,127
2,308
8,758
18
21
14
53
. 59
61
37
137
.2,545
2,469
1,814 •!'
6,828 i
701
572
443
1,716
Table 6-7
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COMPLIANCE INDICATOR:
NUMBER OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PENALTIES IN THE BORDER AREA
These indicators measure legal actions taken and penalties
assessed in the border area by the United States. Many fac-
tors can affect the number of enforcement actions con-
ducted, including the number of facilities to be inspected,
the amount of enforcement resources, and general compli-
ance rates among regulated facilities. During the next year,
the workgroup will improve this indicator to better define
and explain enforcement and compliance trends in the bor-
der area (Tables 6-8 and 6-9).
Number of Enforcement Actions : ' i :
in the United States Border Area '
1996-1998 Fiscal Years -,
1996 I^097 ;.u.1998l'..,JlXo.taC,.]^tat^(:edeh'l
Air
Hazardous Waste
Water
29
11
21
,15
10
19
,. ,36
11
6
, 80
32
46
73/7
21/11
7/39"
« In 1 998, Texas assumed the Cttln! Waljef Act Napfta! pdlliifjon pisjcharie
Elimination Systems (NPDES) pjifjijgfarlr Rftrri 'fi4cW^ar;(ra 1996jto Ff
1998, EPA took 37 Clean, yyat^llpt:p^l,§ntefgg^Rt astj^ns f|n jlexa^.
Table 6-8
• : i ' - : '" I • - !
Penalties Resulting From Enforcement Actions in the
United States Border Area with Mexico • ;
1996-1998 Fiscal Years .'•
Air
Hazardous Waste
Water
$2,221,685°
$854,088
$2,785
$93,417
$2,463,771
$141,420
$90.00
$4,688,241
$1,088,925
$90.00
Including EPA settlement againsij Kelco| Iji/lonsanta Qo. .for $1i,857,395
Including the State of Texas sStt|emeni; against Border Steel Inc.! for
$2,000,000 . I.I ' . , I •! -,.i . ,.'•'- ' ! ,:. .••'.'•. ! ;
Table 6-9
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
66
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
AMOUNT OF POLLUTION REDUCED AS THE RESULT OF ENFORCEMENT
This indicator measures the amount of pollutants not emit-
ted into the environment as a result of enforcement actions
in the United States. Although not a direct measure of
improvements in ambient environmental quality, the data on
the amount of pollutants reduced provide some measure of
the contribution of enforcement actions to a cleaner envi-
ronment (Table 6-10).
Amount of Pollution Reduced in the U.S. Border Area
as a Result of EPA Enforcement Actions"
1996-1998 Fiscal Years ;
Year Pollution Reduction in Kg
1996
: 1997
1998
Total
,/ -.,:','..'- 1,047,213'' ;; ';
, ;-."-,' 817,000
: 609,000
2,573,213 :
a Based on case conclusion data sheets J - .
" In the 1997 Indicators Report, EPA reported that pollution in th|e U.S.
border area was reduced by 6,640,000 kilograms (kg) in 1996. | A review
of the EPA data in July 1999 indicates that pollution was reduied by
1,047,213 kilograms. EPA currently is reviewing the information to rectify
the discrepancy. . . I .
OTHER NOTABLE
Table 6-10
_ _
In 1996, with the objective of deterring environmental degra-
dation affecting natural resources and ecosystems, PROFEPA
participated in the process of reforming the Ley General del
Equilibria EcoUgico y la Protecci6n alAmbiente (LGEEPA, or
General Law of Ecological Balance and the Protection of the
Environment). PROFEPA participated in the process of
reforming the Cddigo Penal para el Distrito Federal (Penal
Code for the Federal District). The modification was
designed to strengthen the efficiency of environmental crim-
inal legislation.
Further, in 1997, the Procuraduria General de la Repub-
lica (PGR, or Mexico's Office of the Attorney General) began
to participate in the workgroup, specifically in activities
resulting in the implementation of technical and legal con-
sultations on environmental law enforcement.
IP5^ - * FUTURE
J* ^ _ PERSPECTIVES
During 1999, the workgroup continued to implement proj-
ects focused on the seven priority areas. The projects are
updated yearly through conferences and consultations among
the various agencies, as well as through the participation of
the subworkgroups. In addition, the workgroup seeks the
participation of U.S. federal and state wildlife officials to
help enforce wildlife laws and to strengthen coordination
between the United States and Mexico.
The workgroup will also seek to do the following:
• Develop web-based training.
• Improve tracking of border inspections.
• Ensure accuracy of enforcement and compliance data.
• Further develop indicators of effective enforcement
and compliance.
• Better ensure public participation in the workgroup
within the respective legal frameworks of each country.
• Consider environmental justice concerns in its actions.
• Finalize joint communication to inform field per-
sonnel and subworkgroup members about mechanisms
that can assist law enforcement officials in Mexico and
the United States.
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
67
-------
Us.
V ^
V\
fH
v.
«, *<
1 It f •
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Human health and the environment are inextricably
Contamination of air, water, and soil by chemical
and biological pollutants is suspected to be a key
factor in the development of respiratory and gas-
trointestinal diseases, elevated blood lead levels in
children, and pesticide poisonings.
In the U.S.-Mexico border region, there is
heightened public concern about a variety of demo-
graphic, economic, and environmental factors that
may contribute to increased risks to human health.
These factors include:
• Rapid urbanization without commensurate
development of health and environmental
infrastructure
• Increased industrial/manufacturing activity
and the attendant occupational risks
• Poverty
• Poor quality or lack of drinking water
• Inadequate treatment and disposal of
domestic and industrial wastewater
• Domestic solid and hazardous waste and
industrial wastes
• Improper handling and storage of pesticides
• Increases in the number of children
• Increases in the number of young adults in the
force
ssasa
linked.
work-
In light of these issues — specifically those related to envi-
ronmental factors — the Border XXI Environmental Health
"Workgroup (Health Workgroup) was established in 1996 to
address and improve the quality of life on the border. Before
its establishment, health and environmental officials in the
United States and Mexico addressed environmental health issues
through unilateral mechanisms. As part of that approach, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) worked
closely together on the Interagency Coordinating Committee
(ICC) for Environmental Health on the U.S.-Mexico border.
In much the same way, Mexico's Secretarta de Salud (SSA, or
Secretariat of Health) and Secretctria de Media Ambiente, Recur-
sos Naturales, y Pesca (SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environ-
ment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries) worked together to
address environmental health issues throughout Mexico. Rather
than creating a new entity for the Border XXI Environmental
Health Workgroup, it was decided that the ICC
would represent the U.S. position on environmen-
tal health issues and continue working with the SSA
and SEMARNAP in a binational context. The Envi-
ronmental Health Workgroup became an avenue
through which members of the ICC, SSA, and
SEMARNAP could identify, measure, and address
environmental health issues in a binational forum.
OBJECTIVES OP THE
ENVIRON3VIENTAL HEALTH WORKGROUP*
AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
The Border XXI Environmental Health Workgroup
seeks to increase binational collaboration between
environmental and public health entities to improve
the health of border communities. These collabo-
rative efforts should improve the workgroup's abil-
ity to identify and address the environmental con-
ditions that pose the highest health risks. The goal
of the workgroup is to address environmental health
concerns to reduce exposures and other factors asso-
ciated with the increase in disease rates along the
border. To that end, the objectives presented in Table 7-1
(on the following page) were defined.
In 1996, the workgroup identified seven discrete initiatives
of mutual importance to support the five objectives. Rep-
resentatives of participating U.S. federal agencies (EPA and
HHS), state health and environmental agencies, and their
federal and state counterparts in Mexico agreed on the ini-
tiatives. The initiatives fit within the workgroup's four pro-
grammatic areas of Research, Communication, Training, and
Surveillance and include:
• Pesticide Exposure and Health Effects in Children
• Pediatric Lead (Pb) Exposure and Risk Reduction
• Neural Tube Defects (NTD) Surveillance
• Advanced Training
• Environmental Health Alerts and Communication
• International Toxicology Center Development
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
1 Please note that subsequent sections will refer to these objectives.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Objectives
• Improve the capacity of state, tribal, and local health and
environmental agencies to assess the relationship between human
health and environmental exposures by conducting surveillance, mon-
itoring, and research studies.
• Improve the capacity of state, tribal, and local health and envi-
ronmental agencies to deliver environmental health Intervention, pre-
vention, and educational services.
• Increase the opportunities for stakeholders on the border (for
example, individuals, communities, institutions and organizations, and
occupational groups) to participate in environmental health initiatives.
• Improve training opportunities for environmental and health
personnel.
• Improve public awareness and understanding of environmental
exposure conditions and health problems by providing information
and educational opportunities.
The Qt>J4cHVes liMM'abwCnWWpteen paraphrased from thf fratfrewcrfjc
Ooc^/meM F« a more, detailed dfseriptibn of the, objectives, please refer;td,
that 'rip, = '• .1 ,;"".,!: ">:! asM*1':!1 •; ;'."'.."' • ' .<.' •' ' '.' j !|! "' ; 4*1'";' 'f '• i »i'!;
Tho objectives described to this Stectiqn may be: referred;to by rujmber,'TJi^,,
numbers are Intended lot ease of inference only and do; not Imply;..order w;
Table 7-1
Progress Toward Goals
Although the objectives of the workgroup have remained
unchanged since 1996, a recent review of the program has
caused the workgroup to re-evaluate its goals and objectives.
Since its establishment, the workgroup has emphasized the
need for public input and participation (accomplished
through objective 3). In affirmation of that principle, the
workgroup co-chairs unveiled a dynamic vision for the Envi-
ronmental Health Workgroup at the 1998 annual workgroup
meeting. The workgroup has since implemented the new
model, which is discussed further in the Future Perspectives
section of this chapter.
In Table 7-2, progress toward achieving the five main
objectives is summarized. Following the chart are detailed
descriptions of achievements realized through each initiative.
Pesticide Exposure and Health Effects in Children
This initiative addresses objectives 1, 2, 3, and 5. Through
this initiative, the risks and possible health effects from con-
stant exposure to pesticides from multiple sources and path-
ways affecting children who live along the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der are investigated. The subworkgroup responsible for this
initiative recently published the Phase I Pesticide Usage Report
and produced GIS crop usage population maps. The sub-
Overview of the Strategy
Initiative Objective Objective Objective Qbjectiye Objective,
Pesticide
Exposure
and Health
Effects
In Children
Pediatric
Pb
Exposure and
Risk Reduction
NTD
Surveillance
Advanced
Training
Environmental
Health Alerts and
Communication
International
Toxicology
Center
Development
Table 7-2
workgroup also has initiated Phase II pilot studies in Yuma,
Arizona and El Centre, California. By increasing commu-
nity awareness of specific health issues related to pesticide
exposure, the Phase I report has improved the capacity of
state, tribal, and local environmental agencies to deliver serv-
ices to the communities. To date, several workshops have
been convened to consider research methods and pesticide
exposure assessments.
Pediatric Lead Exposure and Risk Reduction
This initiative, which includes three distinct efforts, meets
all of the objectives of the Environmental Health Workgroup.
Achievements under this initiative are listed below.
• The University of California-Irvine-(UCI) managed
children's blood lead investigation in Tijuana, Baja Cali-
fornia is in its final stages. Data collection has been com-
pleted; local personnel have been trained; a community
education program has been implemented; and children
with elevated blood lead levels have been receiving fol-
low-up care through case management to determine the
source of lead exposure. In addition, a laboratory for
blood lead analysis has been established at the Hospital
Municipal de Tijuana (Tijuana Municipal Hospital).
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/
National Center for Environmental Health
(CDC/NCEH) conducted two field investigations, one
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
70
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
in the Arizona-Sonora border region in March 1998 and
the other in the New Mexico-Chihuahua border region
in January 1999. In both instances, CDC/NCEH donat-
ed portable blood lead analyzers and collection supplies
to the state health departments to promote ongoing
blood lead surveillance on both sides of the border. The
final report on the Sonora-Arizona investigation is avail-
able from the Health Studies Branch of NCEH.
• The Texas Department of Health (TDH) Office of
Border Health completed a survey of the health and
environmental conditions of Texas border counties and
colonias in 1997. As indicated in the Introduction, colo-
nias are settlements on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexi-
co border that frequently suffer from inadequate hous-
ing, inadequate or nonexistent infrastructure, and a lack
of basic services.
Neural Tube Defects Surveillance
The NTD initiative fulfills objectives 1, 2, 4, and 5. Since
the inception of the workgroup, participants from Mexico
and the United States have worked to enhance the birth
defect surveillance systems along the border. The U.S.
National Birth Defects Prevention Network collected NTD
monitoring data from the four U.S. border states. In Mex-
ico, the National Surveillance System (SUTVE) has contin-
ued its ongoing collection and publication of NTD data
from the six Mexican border states. Under the advanced
training initiative, an epidemiology resident was assigned to
work on NTD epidemiology in Baja California. In addi-
tion, the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), in
partnership with the CDC and EPA, recruited an epidemi-
ologist for the PAHO field office in El Paso to work on
environmental health issues, including NTD surveillance and
prevention. A proposal is in place for the Centra National
de Salud Ambiental-Instituto National de Salud Ptiblica
(CENSA-INSP, or National Center for Environmental
Health-National Institute of Public Health) to explore the
relationship between genetic and environmental risk factors
for anencephaly. Data collection began in Tamaulipas and
Baja California. Work under the initiative continues in col-
laboration with the Texas NTD project, which is complet-
ing a case-control study to identify risk factors for NTD as
well as the use of folk acid to reduce NTD occurrence.
Advanced Training
This initiative fulfills objectives 2, 3, 4, and 5. One aspect
of developing a sustainable infrastructure for environmental
health in the border region is the need to build expertise in
environmental epidemiology and toxicology. Several of the
initiatives of the Environmental Health Workgroup provide
excellent opportunities for developing this capacity. The
advanced training initiative therefore was created to provide
a mechanism for the integration of training opportunities
into other workgroup initiatives. A variety of training modal-
ities—graduate training, short courses, faculty development,
and such alternative methods as distance-learning programs
and computer-based courses—will be used. The target audi-
ence includes those working in governmental and non-
governmental institutions and universities in the border
region. Training will focus on developing the disciplines of
environmental and occupational epidemiology, toxicology,
engineering, and risk communication.
To date, the following accomplishments have been
achieved through the advanced training initiative:
• Six short courses covering the themes of epidemio-
logic evaluations of environmental and occupational dis-
ease outbreaks, occupational epidemiology, industrial
hygiene, epidemiology of NTDs, and surveillance of pes-
ticide intoxications have been carried out in Mexico.
• A survey of training needs has been completed.
• A small research grant program to study lead poi-
soning and childhood asthma resulting from air pollu-
tion has been developed.
• An implementation plan for a cross-border training
grants program has been designed.
• Two workshops on clinical toxicology have been con-
ducted for physicians in charge of toxicology centers in
Mexico.
This initiative provides training that improves local capac-
ity for environmental health intervention and prevention,
increases opportunities for stakeholders on the border to par-
ticipate in environmental health initiatives, and improves
public awareness.
Environmental Health Alerts and Communication
This initiative meets objectives 2, 3, and 5 by improving
local capacity for environmental health intervention and pre-
vention through increased communication, and by improv-
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
71
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ing awareness of environmental health problems. In col-
laboration with the four U.S. border states, this initiative
subworkgroup compiled the Environmental Health Yellow
Pages, a resource tool to help identify agencies responsible
for particular environmental health issues. The yellow pages
can be accessed at www.epa.gov/orsearth.
International Toxicology Center and Poison Control
Center Development
The toxicology center and poison control center initiative
addresses objectives 1 and 2 by improving local surveillance
and education capacity. Toxicology centers have been estab-
lished in Hermosillo, Sonora and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
to conduct surveillance and educational capacity projects. A
third center is being established in Reynosa, Tamaulipas.
The initiative also addresses objectives 3 and 5 by improv-
ing training opportunities and public awareness of environ-
mental health problems. In addition, advanced training pro-
grams have been established for qualified personnel who have
practical experience in medical toxicology. To complete the
advanced training program, students are required to pass a
certification examination.
Geographic Information Systems
Through research and information-gathering, this initiative
addresses all the objectives and provides municipalities with
the capacities for intervention, prevention, and education. In
conjunction with efforts under the pesticides initiative, the
GIS subworkgroup has made several advances, including:
• The production of standardized base maps for both
sides of die border
• The development of a border-wide inventory of envi-
ronmental, population, and health data sets available for
the Mexican border states
• The temporal analysis of pesticide applications
• The use of satellite imagery to identify crop types
along the U.S.-Mexico border
These items have been integrated with data quality man-
agement and quality assurance plans. Further, (1) a listserv
(an e-mail distribution list set up on a specific server housed
at HHS) has been established to facilitate communication
among individuals working on GIS on the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der (2) data quality management and quality assurance plans
have been developed and (3) a report for environmental
health practitioners has been produced. The report address-
es applications of GISs to public health, sources of GIS data
for those applications, and opportunities for training.
1=1
ENVIRONMENTAL
, INDICATORS
"
In 1997, the Environmental Health "Workgroup developed
process indicators related-to the seven initiatives previously
discussed that fit into the following four programmatic areas
of the workgroup, which also were discussed previously: Sur-
veillance, Research, Communication, and Training. Because
of a lack of baseline measurements for the identified initia-
tives, the primary focus of the workgroup has been to con-
duet research to develop the indicators. In addition, Mex-
ico has developed and proposed some new indicators that
may be explored by the workgroup.
A more detailed description of the data collection activ-
ities initiated for these indicators can be found in the imple-
mentation plans for 1999-2000.
Types of Environmental Indicators
D
D
EL
PRESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
PERCENT REDUCTION IN TOTAL PESTICIDE EXPOSURE AND
NUMBER OF CHILDREN IMPACTED IN THE BORDER AREA
/\s this type of measurement requires baseline data and measurements
taken at some point in the future, the percent reduction is not yet
available.
Pesticides Exposure and Health Effects in Children
The workgroup continues to work toward this goal. A report
on pesticide use in the border region, Phase I Pesticide Usage
Report, has been published by the workgroup. In addition,
GIS crop usage population maps have been completed, and
Phase II studies have been initiated in Yuma and El Cen-
tro. In January 2000, a project dealing with pediatric expo-
sure to organophosphate pesticides and their association with
cytogenetic harm began in Valle de San Luis Rio Colorado,
Sonora.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
72
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
NUMBER OF MAPS LINKING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (FOR
EXAMPLE, LAND USE) TO HEALTH EVENTS OR HIGH-RISK GROUPS
Geographic Information Systems
Base GIS maps were developed to research pesticide use. In
addition, GIS maps are being employed to analyze NTDs
in the border region. In total, 538 maps have been pro-
duced to date: 70 maps of Arizona, 72 of New Mexico, 98
of California, 212 of Texas, and 86 of Mexico. The maps
serve as a baseline and do not yet link geographic informa-
tion to health events. As data on health events are collect-
ed over the next few years, the links will be made. Addi-
tional maps are still being produced.
PREVALENCE OF ELEVATED BLOOD LEAD LEVELS AND NUMBER OF
EXPOSURE SOURCES OR RISK FACTORS IDENTIFIED FOR INTERVENTION
Pediatric Lead Exposure and Risk Reduction
The workgroup continues to work toward these goals. Sev-
eral pediatric blood lead assessments have been completed
in the border region. One report, The Sonora-Arizona Field
Study, is available from CDC/NCEH. Other reports are
expected in 2000. The workgroup anticipates that the com-
pletion of a document will tie together the discrete evalua-
tions and provide a more comprehensive snapshot of pedi-
atric blood lead levels in the border region.
PREVALENCE OF NEURAL TUBE DEFECTS
Neural Tube Defects Surveillance
The workgroup continues to collect data on NTD prevalence
in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Plans are being developed
to create an NTD bulletin for the U.S.-Mexico border region.
E/IBER OF POISON CONTROL CENTERS IN OPERATION AND
(IBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE RECEIVED FORMAL
JNING SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BORDER AREA
International Toxicology Center Development
Toxicology centers have been established in Hermosillo and in
Ciudad Judrez. A third center is being established in Reynosa.
Advanced training programs have been established for
qualified personnel who have practical experience in med-
ical toxicology.
NUMBER OF BORDER AREA ORGANIZATIONS LINKED INTO AND
USING THE HEALTH ALERT AND DISEASE OUTBREAK INFORMATION
EXCHANGE AND A MEASUREMENT OF THE EFFECT OF ALERTS ON
EARLY INTERVENTION IN SUDDENLY EMERGING HEALTH RISKS
Health Alerts and Communication
In addition to proposals for developing an electronic system,
the workgroup has examined several existing alert systems
that currently function in the four U.S. border states. The
workgroup anticipates conducting a binational pilot test by
expanding the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations (FDA)
Epi-Net to Mexico. The Epi-Net is a fax-based system for
sharing information with state and local agencies about haz-
ards or problem products, import alerts, and resolutions and
updates of problem situations.
To help people identify the office or agency responsible
for a specific environmental health issue, the workgroup
published the Environmental Health Yellow Pages. In addi-
tion, the workgroup developed a web site www.epa.gov/orsearth)
as a means of sharing information with the public. The Yel-
low Pages, which are posted on the website, are being trans-
lated into Spanish.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE RECEIVING ADVANCED TRAINING AND
NUMBER OF PROJECTS INITIATED IN THE BORDER AREA
Advanced Training
The following efforts have been completed:
• Six short courses related to environmental epidemi-
ology have been conducted.
• A needs assessment has been performed.
• A plan for a cross-border grants program has been
developed.
• Two workshops on clinical toxicology have been con-
ducted for physicians in charge of toxicology centers in
Mexico.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
73
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
OTHER NOTABLE ACTIVITIES
AND ACHIEVEMENTS
In addition to the seven initiatives, the workgroup has con-
tinued to monitor the development and implementation of
seven projects begun under the auspices of the ICC. In-
depth descriptions of the projects are available on the Bor-
der XXI Environmental Health Workgroup web site.
At the 1998 annual meeting of the Environmental Health
Workgroup, the workgroup co-chairs outlined a new vision
for the group that emphasized the need for increased inter-
action between the Environmental Health Workgroup and
other Border XXI workgroups, especially the Air, Water, Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste, and Environmental Information
Resources workgroups. To that end, the SSA, the CDC,
and EPA have started working together on various cross-
linkages involving the Air and Water workgroups. Mexico
recently highlighted two projects it had implemented, the
AgtM Limpid en Casa (Clean Water in Homes) program, and
the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). Additional informa-
tion can be found at the workgroup's web site at
wtvw.epa.gov/orseart}).
The Agua Limpia en Casa program was developed in
collaboration with Mexico's Comisidn Nacional del Agua
(CNA, or National Water Commission). The objective of
the program is to address the basic sanitation needs of bor-
der communities, many of which have a high rate of infant
(children less than one year of age) mortality caused by gas-
troenteritis. Agua Limpia en Casa is an outreach program
to educate small communities about the relationship between
basic sanitation and water-borne illness. Many activities are
conducted under the project, including (1) evaluating com-
munity attitudes and practices with relation to basic sanita-
tion; (2) monitoring water quality for human consumption;
(3) promoting basic sanitation at the community level
through discussions and video presentations; (4) promoting
efficient water use; and (5) developing environmental sani-
tation certification programs.
The program has been very successful, obtaining very
good results with few resources. Given that success, Mexi-
co commented at the 1999 annual meeting of the Envi-
ronmental Health Workgroup that it was hoped the pro-
gram could be expanded to both sides of the border and
instituted as a permanent program.
The most notable achievements of the program occurred
in the municipality of Ojinaga, Chihuahua. Those achieve-
ments include:
• A clear decline (13.2 percent) in the prevalence
of enteric diseases
• An increase (13 percent) in knowledge about water
purification
• An incremental increase in the practice of water purifi-
cation (between 3.5 and 20 percent)
• An increase (between 3 and 5 percent) in the prac-
tice of vegetable washing
A significant decline in the number of gastrointestinal
illnesses was observed, as indicated by the preliminary results
of the program's evaluation. The effects of the program
extended to neighboring communities that were not involved
in the program.
Under the other highlighted project, participation in the
JAC provides a natural link for the Environmental Health
Workgroup and the Air Workgroup. At the 1999 National
Coordinators Meeting, the two workgroups agreed to pursue
joint activities in collaboration with the JAC. Formed under
the auspices of the 1983 La Paz Agreement, the JAC develops
strategies to prevent and control air pollution in the El Paso,
Texas-Ciudad Judrez-Dofia Ana County, New Mexico Air
Basin. With this in mind, the implementation of a bina-
tional environmental system of epidemiological surveillance
was proposed. The system of compatible information would
deal with the effects of atmospheric pollution in sister cities.
If the system is implemented, work on it will begin in Ciu-
dad Judrez and El Paso.
In the United States, die workgroup has been working
on cross linkages with the Air and Water workgroups. The
workgroup recently established excellent relationships with
the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) and the local school system to support a planned
children's pulmonary health study in El Paso. A pilot study
was completed, with the principal study beginning in spring
2000. Another study from this area, Ambient Air Quality
and Acute Pediatric Respiratory Illness in the Paso del Norte
Airshed, has been completed. The study focused on chil-
dren between the ages of 1 and 17 who visited the emer-
The Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment In the Border Area was signed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on February 16, 1984.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
74
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
gency room for treatment of asthma. The study showed a
positive correlation between elevated levels of particulate mat-
ter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10) and visits to
emergency rooms two days after exposure. The report was
published in May 1999 and is available from the CDC.
The Transboundary Air Pollution Project (TAPP), a year-
long study to assess the possible transport of air pollutants
from Mexico into the area in and around Brownsville, Texas
was completed recently. The study results indicate that over-
all levels of air pollutants in the Brownsville area were simi-
lar to or lower than levels in other urban and rural areas in
Texas. In addition, transport of air pollutants across the bor-
der from Mexico did not appear to adversely affect air qual-
ity on the U.S. side of the lower Rio Grande Valley. Few
observations of pollutants exceeded comparative data, most
being volatile organic compounds (VOC); those levels appeared
to be the result of local events and immediate influences and
not of persistent transboundary plumes from Mexico.
In addition, several potential projects involving the Water
and Health workgroups have been identified. These proj-
ects came about as a result of imminent changes scheduled
for water treatment plants in El Paso and Del Rio, Texas.
EPA has developed plans to conduct studies at those loca-
tions that will involve looking at endpoints before and after
the scheduled changes in the treatment plants.
Another unique partnership has developed between the
HHS Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
and EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). As
part of the effort to improve the quality of health related to
environmental issues along the border, EPA entered into an
interagency agreement with HRSA to support environmen-
tal health training and surveillance activities on the U.S.-
Mexico border. Through training, lay community health
workers (promotores} and multi-disciplinary primary care cli-
nicians (physicians, nurse practicioners, registered nurses, and
physicians assistants) will learn to better recognize, under-
stand, and manage illnesses related to exposure to environ-
mental health hazards. This training will provide informa-
tion about exposure to toxins found in air, water, and soil,
as well as basic sanitation practices. The program will be
accomplished by developing a two-track training curriculum,
one for promotores and one for multi-disciplinary clinicians,
that will include implementation of a variety of didactic and
clinical training activities. In the border communities, it is
important to prepare promotores to provide effective outreach
to and education of community members about exposure to
environmental health hazards and to provide clinicians an
opportunity to improve their skills in the areas of early diag-
nosis, treatment, and follow-up on illness related to envi-
ronmental conditions.
Promotores are recognized as long-standing community
leaders who provide a degree of continuity and stability with-
in communities. As members of the community, the pro-
motores are uniquely able to represent the linguistic, cultur-
al, and socioeconomic identity of the community. Promo-
tores are able to articulate information in an appropriate man-
ner to community members and are known not only for their
understanding of the needs of community members, but also
for their ability to respond to health service organizations
regarding those needs. Since there is a shortage and high
turnover rate among primary care clinicians in rural areas, it
is anticipated that in the future, promotores will play a greater
role in reducing exposure to environmental hazards.
FUTURE
PERSPECTIVES
To understand the direction of the Environmental Health
Workgroup for 2000, the history of the workgroup should
first be considered. The mission of the workgroup is based
upon existing unilateral mechanisms that addressed environ-
mental health issues. In Mexico, before the formation of the
workgroup, SEMARNAP and SSA collaborated to identify
their environmental health priorities. Similarly, in the Unit-
ed States, the ICC, consisting of state and federal partners
working in collaboration, addressed priority environmental
health issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Therefore,
when the Environmental Health Workgroup was established
in 1996, it was an easy transition to include the state part-
ners in the United States and Mexico in the development of
workgroup priorities and strategies. The seven discrete ini-
tiatives that the workgroup chose to pursue were identified
with full participation by state environmental and health part-
ners. Although tribal participation was minimal, the work-
group is exploring the possibility of expanding links with the
tribes through the HHS Indian Health Service (IHS).
The findings are detailed in the Lower Rio Grande Valley Transboundary Air Pollution Project (TAPP) Project Report (Doc. No.: EPA/600/R-99/047)
Project Summary (Doc. No.: EPA/600/SR-99/047), Community Summary (Doc. No.: EPA/600/S-99/004), and Question and Answer Fact Sheet (Doc No
EPA/600/F-99-009), which are available for public distribution. The summaries and fact sheet are also available in Spanish.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
75
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
State and federal representatives from the United States
and Mexico volunteered to lead the initiatives. Of the seven
initiatives, three were co-chaired by state representatives. The
workgroup therefore was composed of four workgroup co-
chairs (two from each country) and 14 initiative co-chairs
(seven from each country).
In August 1998, the workgroup implemented a new
model that expanded the original focus. Recognizing the
importance of cross-linkages with other Border XXI work-
groups, as well as the need to account for other environ-
mental health activities hi the U.S.-Mexico border region that
did not fit within the realm of Border XXI, the co-chairs
sought to foster a more comprehensive and inclusive work-
group. This new direction, or the "New Vision" as it is has
come to be known, highlights three components: (1) cross-
linkages, (2) binational initiatives, and (3) environmental
health discussion forums — national and binational. The
vision includes the understood need for increased bilateral
coordination at all workgroup levels. Of particular impor-
tance is communication among all Border XXI Workgroup
binational co-chairs (SSA, HHS, EPA, and SEMARNAP).
Cross-Linkages
Within the context of the New Vision, the workgroup has
focused its efforts during the past year on including cross-
cutting activities in collaboration with the Air, Water, Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste, and Environmental Information
Resources workgroups. As each of the programs developed,
it became apparent that individual workgroup programs could
benefit from one another through collaborative interaction.
Since many of the health problems occurring along the bor-
der are the result of water-, air-, or hazardous waste-based
vectors, changes occurring in these vectors by natural or
man-made activities could be an ideal test bed for measur-
ing changes in health status. The Environmental Health
Workgroup has assigned liaisons from the United States and
Mexico to each workgroup to ensure continued interaction.
In addition, the workgroup is collaborating on a limited
basis with the Air and Water Workgroups on existing proj-
ects that would benefit from the cross-linkage process.
Cross-linkages are also taking place among the seven ini-
tiatives. For example, activities under the advanced train-
ing initiative are being used to support activities conducted
under the NTD initiative.
Binational Initiatives
The workgroup will continue to support the binational ini-
tiatives until the expected outcomes have been achieved. At
the annual meeting, the workgroup will evaluate the progress
of activities under the initiatives to determine which ones
are complete and which ones require additional efforts to
achieve the stated goals. The workgroup co-chairs will assign
a representative to work with the initiative co-chairs to facil-
itate their work and nurture a continued binational dialogue.
The workgroup supports die continued use of the Environ-
mental Health Workgroup listserv as a mechanism for com-
munication between workgroup participants and is consid-:
ering the benefits of opening the listserv to the public.
The co-chairs also realize that the focus of the initiatives
has become more project-oriented, and that the overall work-
group is more exclusive than inclusive. Using the New Vision
as a guide, greater workgroup inclusiveness will be fostered
by encouraging the initiative co-chairs to bring together
experts in their respective areas to address specific issues in
a binational manner, rather than on a project-by-project basis.
Environmental Health Discussion Forums - National and
Binational
The New Vision delineates a convening role for the work-
group and emphasizes the importance of being inclusive.
Numerous ongoing activities are taking place hi the U.S.-
Mexico border region that address environmental health
issues. Universities, government agencies (federal, state, and
local), non- and inter-governmental agencies and private
industries all conduct work in the region. Some of the proj-
ects fit within the workgroup initiatives, while others do not;
however, the workgroup, in light of its new vision, could
serve as a convener for the various groups by providing an
arena for national and binational discussion. By creating a
forum for discussing U.S.-Mexico border environmental
health issues in both unilateral and bilateral contexts, the
workgroup will facilitate the interaction of health and envi-
ronmental officials and stakeholders to identify and address
priority issues.
The Environmental Health Workgroup is at a dynamic
juncture in its evolving role and can move forward only
through its high-level binational commitment and under-
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
76
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
standing of the state and tribal priorities. The workgroup
supports the newly signed Coordination Principles Between
the Border XXI National Coordinators and the U.S. and Mex-
ican Border States and U.S. Tribes for the Border XXI Program
(Coordination Principles) (see Chapter 2) and will continue
to work in cooperation and collaboration with our state and
tribal partners. The resolution of border health issues can
be accomplished only by understanding and addressing needs
at the community level. The workgroup recognizes the
importance of state and tribal input on these activities and
will more vigorously pursue linkages with the tribes through
IHS. The listserv and web site will be used as two of the
mechanisms for increasing participation in the workgroup,
and other means of enhancing communication will be
explored. Further, to facilitate binational communication,
the workgroup will continue to meet every six months to
assess the continued development of the workgroup.
Near-Term Goals
On the basis of implementation plans developed by the lead-
ers of the seven initiatives and other projects, the Environ-
mental Health "Workgroup has developed the objectives pre-
sented below.
The Pesticides and Children Initiative will:
• Complete Phase II pilot studies.
• Develop a project on pediatric exposure to organophos-
phate pesticides and their association with cytogenetic
harm in Valle de San Luis Rfo Colorado, Sonora.
The Pediatric Lead Exposure Initiative will:
• Complete the Tijuana investigation.
• Produce a final report on the New Mexico-
Chihuahua investigation.
• Conduct a pediatric blood lead assessment in the
Texas-Tamaulipas border region.
• Produce a final report on the survey of the health
and environmental conditions in the Texas border coun-
ties and colonias.
• Present to the federal authorities in Mexico City a
final report of the various blood lead assessments con-
ducted in the border region.
• Develop a comprehensive report on pediatric lead
exposure in the border region.
• Address the issue of lead poisoning risk to workers
(and those they live with) posed by industries or shops
on the border through discussions and workshops.
The NTD Initiative will:
• Increase the institutional coverage and quality of NTD
surveillance in U.S. and Mexican border states.
• Strengthen operation of the surveillance system with
additional personnel.
• Summarize available epidemiological data from U.S.
and Mexican border states obtained from regularly col-
lected surveillance data.
The Advanced Training Initiative will:
• Provide advanced training in clinical toxicology to
support the staff of the toxicology centers.
• Provide support for an applied epidemiology fellow-
ship from the Mexican SSA for the NTD surveillance
system along the border of Mexico.
• Initiate training for two border fellows at the Mexi-
can Polytechnical Institute in environmental toxicology.
• Support short-term training of a Mexican toxicolo-
gist at the CDC in the laboratory analysis of pesticide
residues.
• Support the provision of a training program in the
use of GIS for Mexican border state health department
researchers.
• Provide short courses in the border region, selected
on the basis of the outcome of a survey of needs.
• Support the training of a Mexican epidemiologist at
the doctoral level in an American university.
The Initiative on Health Alerts and Communication will:
• Conduct a binational pilot project of the FDA's Epi-
Net product alert system.
• Translate the Environmental Health Yellow Pages into
Spanish.
• Collaborate with Mexico to make the Environmental
Health Yellow Pages binational.
• Expand the web site to include environmental health
information.
The Toxicology Center Development Initiative will:
• Train the staff for the toxicology centers previously
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
77
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
established in Chihuahua, Chihuahua. Training will be
conducted at the toxicology center of the Hospital Civil
de Pensiones in Chihuahua. The training has been
designed to be completed over a long-term period.
• Open a toxicology center in Reynosa, Tamaulipas.
• Open a toxicology center in Baja California.
• Open a toxicology center in Coahuila.
• Create a statistical compendium of poisonings in the
U.S.-Mexico border region.
The GIS Initiative will:
• Complete temporal analysis of pesticide applications
(in progress).
• Complete soil sampling in school yards in Imperial
Valley, California and in the lower Rio Grande Valley
(in progress).
• Complete the Community Relations and Education
Program Pilot (in progress).
With regard to the other projects, the Environmental Health
Workgroup will:
• Implement the Agua Limpia en Casa (Clean Water
in Homes) program in Mexico's northern border states.
• Implement projects in collaboration with the JAC.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
78
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
I OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL
ISSUES AND THEMES
As the U.S.-Mexico border area continues to grow, so does
the demand for environmental information and
methods of accessing that information. Conse-
quently, tremendous amounts of information about
the border environment and public health have
been collected and generated by government agen-
cies, academic institutions, nongovernmental
organizations, the private sector, and border resi-
dents. As more environmental data for the bor-
der area become available, greater information
management efforts will be necessary to avoid data
gaps and duplication of efforts by different enti-
ties with like interests along the border.
Some of the recurring issues and themes raised
by communities, academic institutions, and other
entities include: (1) the need for increased public
access to a wide variety of environmental infor-
mation; (2) the need for information that is pre-
sented in a form that is comprehensible and serves
the needs of the various users; and (3) the need
for a comprehensive analysis of environmental con-
ditions and pressures along the border and the
identification of beneficial responses to
those pressures.
The Environmental Information
Resources (EIR) Workgroup is commit-
ted to making existing environmental
information easily accessible and useful to
a wide variety of audiences. The EIR
Workgroup continues to: (1) coordinate
the dissemination of environmental infor-
mation along the border; (2) coordinate with the other eight
workgroups to institutionalize effective communication and
information sharing; (3) implement and oversee environ-
mental information and education projects; and (4) evaluate
the effectiveness of environmental policies along the border.
v-i n^ j
*i OBJECTIVES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION RESOURCES WORKGROUP
, AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
Some of the main objectives of the EIR Workgroup include:
(1) developing an organized approach to information man-
agement; (2) encouraging horizontal linkages among various
groups and agencies along the border; and (3) working with
the other eight workgroups to institutionalize effective com-
munication and information sharing. To that end,
the EIR Workgroup is committed to developing a
systematic approach to the collection and dissemi-
nation of border environmental data and informa-
tion. In 1996, the EIR Workgroup developed a set
of goals to set the stage for future information man-
agement efforts. Table 8-1 presents a summary of
those objectives.
Objectives
• Establish an inventory of environmental information
for the border region.
« Create effective mechanisms for sharing information
with government agencies and Border XXI workgroups.
• improve and Increase public access to information.
• Establish a unified GIS system for the U.S.-Mexico
border area.
• Promote environmental education opportunities in
border communities.
• Assist the Strategic Planning ;ahd Evaluation Team in
developing environmental indicators for the border
region to systematically measure the extent
to which environmental policy addresses the
most urgent environmental issues.
The objectives listed above may have been para-
phrased from the Framework Document. For a more
detailed description of the objectives, please refer
to that report. ;
The objectives described in this section may be
referred to by number. The numbers are intended for
ease of reference only and do not imply order of
importance.
Table 8-1
Progress Toward Goals
While much work remains, the EIR Workgroup has made
significant progress in addressing environmental information
needs along the border. The following projects highlight
progress toward meeting the goals and objectives listed above.
Establish an Inventory of Environmental
Information for the Border Region
The EIR Workgroup, San Diego State University, and the
U.S.-Mexico Border Information Institute have collaborated
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
to create the Border EcoWeb, a web site that provides links
to more than 600 other web sites that contain border envi-
ronmental information.
The Border EcoWeb inventory consists of environmen-
tal information, metadata, and databases, as well as infor-
mation about program activities, grants, and other useful,
border-related topics. The inventory identifies the types of
relevant environmental data already available over the Inter-
net and establishes a convenient and reliable mechanism to
lead users to that information. The web sites can be searched
by geographic location, medium (air, water, hazardous waste,
and more), agency, or organization.
The Border EcoWeb also contains a directory of useful
information about agencies, organizations, groups, and proj-
ects. In addition, the directory includes contact informa-
tion for those agencies, organizations, and groups, as well as
descriptions of the projects and activities.
Two advisory panels were established to support the Bor-
der EcoWeb project. A border-wide advisory group of key
individuals from the border regions of Mexico and the Unit-
ed States was formed. In addition, a regional transborder
advisory board consisting of members from the California-
Baja California border area was established to help address
user issues. The two boards provided input on all phases
of the project and helped test Border EcoWeb products.
In addition, a hard-copy document has been prepared
as a tool for border residents who have little or no Internet
access or little Internet experience. The Border EcoWeb can
be accessed at www.borderecoweb.sdsu.edu.
Create Effective Mechanisms for Sharing Information with
Government Agencies and Among Border XXI Workgroups
As envisioned in the 1996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Pro-
gram: Framework Document (Framework Document), this
objective aims to establish compatibility of information
infrastructure and connectivity between environmental
information systems of both countries. The objective also
prescribes subgoals to facilitate general communication and
information exchange between Border XXI workgroups and
government agencies.
The EIR Workgroup has initiated several projects to facil-
itate information sharing among Border XXI workgroups and
between government agencies. Two such projects include the
Border EcoWeb described above, and the Border XXI web
site described below. While these two information systems
are available to the general public, they also serve as a valu-
able source of information for U.S. and Mexican government
agencies and the nine Border XXI workgroups.
Improve and Increase Public Access to Information
In 1996, the EIR Workgroup created a Border XXI web site
to increase public access to information. Currently, the web
site includes a number of Border XXI publications, includ-
ing the Framework Document, annual implementation plans,
the 1997 United States-Mexico Border Environmental Indica-
tors Report (1997 Indicators Report), and the compendiums
of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) border activ-
ities. The site also contains a directory of Border XXI work-
groups and information about Border XXI activities. In
addition, links to other border-related web sites are provid-
ed, and a calendar of events is maintained to announce Bor-
der XXI meetings, conferences, and events that are open to
the public. Most of the Border XXI documents are avail-
able to view and download in both Spanish and English. It
is anticipated that all documents will be available in Span-
ish by late 2000. The web site can be accessed at
www. epa.gov/usmexicoborder.
The workgroup also recognizes that some border com-
munities cannot easily access electronic information. The
workgroup therefore continues to work with the EPA bor-
der offices in El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California (see
Chapter 2) to establish non-electronic information about
Border XXI activities. As an example, fact sheets have been
created to provide an overview of the goals and objectives
of the nine Border XXI workgroups.
In addition, EPA Region 6 publishes a bilingual quar-
terly newsletter, the Border Bulletin, which informs the bor-
der community about EPA and environmental issues and
activities in the New Mexico-Texas-Mexico border region.
More than 2,000. residents, government officials, and other
stakeholders receive the newsletter, which is also posted at
www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6bo/eirwgp.html. Table 8-2 on the fol-
lowing page presents a list of border-related web sites.
SEMARNAP recently published the Reporte del Estado Ambi-
entaly de las Recursos Naturales en la Frontera Norte de Mtx-
ico (State of the Environment and Natural Resources in the
Northern Border of Mexico), which addresses multi-media
environmental and natural resource issues. The report sum-
ENVIRON MENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
80
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
marizes the state of the environment for air, water, solid
waste, hazardous waste, pollution prevention, and other envi-
ronmental topics.
The Border on the Web
A Short List of Border-Related Web Sites
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI site: www.epa.gov/usmeieicobonier : •
EPA Region 6 (includes bilingual border information for New Mexico and
Texas): www.epa.gov/region6/border
EPA Region 9 (includes bilingual border information for California1 and-Ari-
zona): www.epa.gov/region9/cr6ss_pr/compendi/index.html
Institute National de Ecologfa (INE, or National Institue for Ecology):
www.ine.gob.mx
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, fiecursbs Naturales "y Pesca (SE°MARNAP,
or Secretariat for Environment, Natural-Resources, and Fisheries):
www.semarnap.gob.mx
U.S.-Mexico Information Center on Air Pollution (CICA):
www.epa.gov/ttn/catcfcica
U.S.-Mexico Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HAZTRAKS):
www.epa.gov/region6/haztraks
Interagency Coordinating Committee for U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental
Health: www.epa.gov/orsearth
Table 8-2
While much work has been done to increase public
access to information, no procedure has been developed by
all agencies involved in Border XXI to address the release
of environmental information. To that end, a cross-media
subcommittee (made up of representatives of state and fed-
eral agencies of the United States and Mexico) has been
formed to make recommendations on the release and
exchange of environmental information at all government
levels. A key objective of this subcommittee is to seek
active participation from a variety of stakeholders, includ-
ing representatives of Mexico, the four U.S. border states,
and the tribal nations.
The subcommittee has held a series of conference calls
to address the challenges and issues involved in releasing and
sharing environmental information. At the National EIR
and Air "Workgroups meetings in Tijuana, Baja California
(September 1998), discussions of these issues were held to -
seek public input. Furdier discussions took place in Octo-
ber 1998 during the Border XXI Cross-Workgroup Meeting
held in Dallas, Texas on processes for seeking further par-
ticipation on the part of federal and state agencies bodi coun-
tries. In addition, in 1999, the U.S. EIR Workgroup co-
chair visited several areas along the border to obtain input
from the general public and U.S. federally recognized tribes
residing in the border region.
At the 1999 National Coordinators Meeting in Ensena-
da, Baja California, a contact for Mexico was appointed to
address issues related to Mexico's release of environmental
information.
Establish a Unified Geographic Information System for
the U.S.-Mexico Border Area
The spatial data bases currently available for the border region
vary in detail for each geographic region. In addition, data
compatibility across the international and local borders is
inconsistent. The Geographic Information System (GIS)
Subworkgroup has continued to work on resolving these
issues and is hopeful that the data base created through diose
efforts will serve as the foundation for subsequent bination-
al digital mapping efforts.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the EIR Work-
group, in partnership with other entities, are developing a
large-scale, high-resolution, vertically-integrated (that is, layers
overlay properly) GIS database for the U.S.-Mexico border
area. In a GIS, data are managed in a series of layers. Each
layer represents a specific theme, such as roads, parcels of land,
bodies of water, or specific geographic land features. Cur-
rendy, USGS has completed about half of a 10- to 12-year,
$30 million GIS project for the U.S. side of the border.
• U.S. Partnerships - USGS and the EIR Workgroup
have worked to encourage active participation by gov-
ernment agencies, including the U.S. Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior (USDA and DOI), the Nat-
ural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service
Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. State
and local partners include the Texas Stratmap Program
and the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG). As a result of these efforts, this project is
three to five years ahead of schedule. The partnerships
have allowed USGS to better leverage resources and cre-
ate geospatial products along the border. In particular,
DOI has provided millions of dollars to the GIS map-
ping project.
• Institute National de Estadistica, Geografia, e
Informdtica (INEGI, or National Institute of Statis-
tics, Geography, and Information) - USGS has been
working widi INEGI, the Mexican mapping agency, to
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
81
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
build GIS data sets along the Mexican side of the bor-
der. The two agencies have initiated a joint pilot proj-
ect to test data-sharing procedures, such as program
compatibilities and cross-referencing of key GIS data
standards in the El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Judrez, Chi-
huahua border area. Together, the USGS and INEGI
have developed joint standards for the integration of
digital elevation data sets. Despite this progress, the
economic resources for generating digital map products
along the Mexican side of the border have been diffi-
cult to obtain. Additional, high-level efforts are need-
ed to ensure that adequate funding is available to
INEGI to aid in the development of GIS data map-
ping of Mexico's border region.
• Geospatial Products — To meet the need for large-
scale, vertically integrated data, the USGS has made dig-
ital and paper map products available to the public. The
availability of those data helps provide for geospatial data
set consistency along the border and in neighboring areas.
Some of the products that are being used or developed
for the border area include:
- Color infrared (CIR) aerial photography
- Digital elevation models
- Digital orthophoto quarter quadrangles
- Digital raster graphics (that is, digitized quadran-
gles maps)
- Digital political boundaries (that is, states, coun-
ties, and cities)
- Digital Public Land Survey System (PLSS)
- Digital hydrography (that is, rivers, streams, and
lakes)
- Digital transportation (that is, roads, railroads, and
powerlines)
- 1:24,000 topographic maps (that is, the basic 7.5-
minute quadrangles sheet)
Promote Environmental Education Opportunities
in Border Communities
The workgroup recognizes the importance of environmental
education in the border region and has made the following
objectives the basis of environmental education efforts:
• Work with other Border XXI workgroups and with
local communities to (1) identify each border commu-
nity's most important environmental education, training,
and capacity needs, and (2) establish regional bases of
information to respond to those needs.
• Organize a series of conferences on formal education
in the border region to establish an inventory of exist-
ing curricula and environmental education resources and
identify additional needs.
A binational environmental education strategy has been cre-
ated to promote environmental education opportunities in
the border region. The strategy outlines a process for estab-
lishing an effective, binational network of environmental edu-
cation providers. The providers would work together to
identify needs and develop an ongoing, comprehensive, bina-
tional program for the U.S.-Mexico border states.
In addition, the Training and Environmental Education
Materials (TEEM) model has been incorporated into the
binational environmental education strategy. The model has
been highly successful throughout Latin America and Mex-
ico in building local capacity and conserving natural resources.
The TEEM model proposes to establish a network of envi-
ronmental education providers in the United States and Mex-
ico. This network would then allow educators, students,
community groups, government organizations, businesses,
and the public to access environmental information and mate-
rials. The network will:
• Identify priority environmental issues and commu-
nity needs '.
• Assess requirements for improved environmental edu-
cation
• Plan environmental education strategies
• Create a broad base of support that will help moni-
tor program progress
• Evaluate impacts of programs and make proper adjust-
ments to ensure future sustainability
The following projects highlight some of the progress that
has been made toward promoting environmental education
in border communities.
• Rio Grande Watershed Mobile Exhibit (McAllen,
Texas) - The McAllen International Museum is devel-
oping an interactive mobile exhibit focused on the Rio
Grande watershed. The exhibit and associated materi-
als will be part of the museum's ongoing community
outreach program and will be presented to various schools
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
82
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
and communities along the border as a vital, environ-
mental education tool.
• Project Del Rio (Del Rio, Texas) - Curricula on pol-
lution, health, and agriculture—specifically related to
border water issues—were developed and reviewed by
community members and teachers from the border area.
The project created a strong binational educational tool
that involves students in discussions of sustainability for
border communities. The project provides a regional
forum for the exchange of ideas and information among
environmental educators and has increased the partici-
pants' awareness of the Rio Grande international water-
shed.
» Agua para Beber (Laredo, Texas-Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas) - This program has had a significant impact
on the quality of drinking water for colonia residents on
both sides of the border. A total of 25 promotores (com-
munity outreach health workers) from identified colonias
received 18 hours of training in environmental health
and water protection and disinfection techniques. The
promotores visited 20 households once a week for five
weeks to educate household caretakers on proper hygiene
practices and ways to improve disposal practices, water
protection, and water disinfection.
• Sabal Palm Audubon Center and Sanctuary
(Brownsville, Texas) - A new binational and bilingual
program was developed and implemented to educate
school children and families from both sides of the bor-
der about the region's unique natural and cultural her-
itage and to instill a commitment to lifelong bird,
wildlife, and habitat conservation.
• Assessment of Environmental Knowledge on the
U.S.-Mexico Border - Materials and a training program
were created to illustrate how to incorporate environ-
mental lessons—on such topics as species organization,
the interaction of biological systems, chemical reactions,
acid-base principles, and writing and observation skills—
into a teaching curriculum. The integration did not
require change in the curriculum or the development of
new courses. In addition, a questionnaire was devel-
oped by the teachers to assess the level of environmen-
tal knowledge of students along the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der. The questionnaire will be distributed to students
in grades 5 through 9 during the 2000 school year.
• Border Environmental Education Data Base and
Resource Guide (Texas and New Mexico) - The bina-
tional resource guide was developed by the "Waste Man-
agement Education and Research Consortium at New
Mexico State University. This comprehensive guide iden-
tifies the environmental education providers for the U.S.
states of Texas and New Mexico and the Mexican states
of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas.
The guide includes information about primary missions
of environmental education providers, area of coverage,
target audience, available resources, and other pertinent
information.
• Tri-City/Tri-State Binational Water Festival (New
Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua) - This water festival will bring
together students, teachers, and the general public to
increase understanding of how things are interconnect-
ed and how individuals can work to become stewards
of the Earth and its resources. Children will learn that
quantities of surface water and groundwater are limited
and must be protected. Various exhibits will be on dis-
play to present information about groundwater contam-
ination in aquifers and to illustrate how the Rio Grande
is vulnerable to pollution.
• Learning to be Water Wise and Energy Efficient -
This project will extend the Water Wise Program to the
Rio Grande valley to teach students and parents the
importance of water conservation and to teach students
how to install special water-saving equipment. The proj-
ect will reach 16,250 students, teachers, and families in
the valley. The interdisciplinary Water Wise activities
extend to science, mathematics, creative arts, and com-
munication exercises.
• Environmental Education Planning Seminars for
Arizona and Sonora (Tucson, Arizona) - EPA award-
ed a cooperative agreement to the Environmental Edu-
cation Exchange (EE Exchange), a nonprofit organiza-
tion based in Tucson, to assess environmental education
needs and identify environmental education key players,
programs, and activities taking place in the Arizona-
Sonora region. The objectives of the program were to:
(1) strengthen communication among individuals,
organizations, and border communities with the goal of
creating new educational strategies that address bina-
tional environmental education needs; (2) encourage res-
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
83
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
idents of border communities to exercise their civic
responsibility with regard to environmental problems
through the development of environmental education
programs; and (3) remain sensitive to existing regional
environmental education programs to avoid duplication
and to foster new binational linkages between environ-
mental education providers.
As part of this effort, three binational environmental
education workshops were held in the sister cities of Dou-
glas, Arizona-Agua Prieta, Sonora; Nogales-Nogales; and
Yuma, Arizona-San Luis Rfo Colorado, Sonora. More than
60 educators working along the Arizona-Sonora border par-
ticipated in the two-day events. Following is an overview of
the workshops.
- The workshops fostered communication at the
binational level and permitted educators to share
experiences and ideas about formal and non-formal
environmental education.
- Regional sister city action plans were developed pro-
posing the following: (1) a Sonoran Desert training
workshop for educators in Yuma, with trainers from
Sonora; (2) a project focusing on conservation and
restoration of urban green spaces adjacent to school
grounds in Nogales-Nogales; and (3) an educational
training workshop and pilot plan for reforestation in
Naco, Sonora.
• Imperial/Mexicali Valleys Environmental Educa-
tion Coalition (IMVEEC) Binational Environmen-
tal Education Project (Calexico, California and Mex-
icali, Baja California) - In 1999, EPA awarded a coop-
erative agreement to Imperial Valley College to imple-
ment an environmental education program in the Impe-
rial and Mexicali valleys. The objectives of the pro-
gram are to: (1) establish a core binational planning
committee to plan tasks for the project; (2) develop
and present a workshop for teacher and media repre-
sentatives from both sides of the border on water, air
pollution, and hazardous material and waste; (3) devel-
op a binational field trip for students, with an empha-
sis on water pollution; (4) establish two binational com-
munity education forums; and (5) develop a bilingual
newsletter to address community environmental con-
cerns and to provide a directory of environmental con-
tacts.
Accomplishments of this ongoing project include:
- The creation of a planning committee, which
includes the participation of Centra Regional de Estu-
dios Ambientales (CREAS, or Regional Center for Envi-
ronmental Studies), a nongovernmental organization
located in Mexicali, Baja California, and the Envi-
ronmental Health Binational Council of the sister cities
of Calexico, California and Mexicali
- An information and training workshop on envi-
ronmental issues for media representatives from the
city of Mexicali, conducted in August 1999
• The Environmental Education Blueprint of the
Californias (San Diego and Tijuana Region) - The
San Diego Natural History Museum received a cooper-
ative agreement from the EPA to develop the Environ-
mental Education Blueprint of the Californias, an envi-
ronmental education plan that would foster communi-
cation and plan activities among educators in the San
Diego-Tijuana border region. The objectives of the proj-
ect were to: (1) develop an environmental education
action plan for local environmental educators working
in the San Diego-Tijuana region; (2) focus the plan on.
finding and coordinating environmental education pro-
grams and ideas; and (3) create an information and action
network to implement strategies to provide improved
delivery of environmental information and community
access to resources.
Following is an overview of the four phases of the project
- Phase I: Creation of an inventory of existing envi-
ronmental education programs and a resource matrix
- Phase II: Coordination of environmental education
binational conferences that reviewed the matrix to
identify gaps and overlaps in environmental education
- Phase III: Creation of a regional action plan for
environmental education for the region
- Phase IV: Creation of the Environmental Educa-
tion Council of the Californias (EECC)
Conduct Environmental Education with Tribal
Communities
• Environmental Education Reform in the Califor-
nia/Baja California Border Region (Campo and other
Indigenous Communities in Baja California Norte) —
EPA awarded the Campo Band of Mission Indians a
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
84
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
cooperative agreement to expand environmental educa-
tion opportunities in the tribal community of Campo
and five indigenous communities of Baja California
Norte. The objectives of the project are to: (1) provide
trilingual environmental education materials for the
schools of the Indian communities in the California-
Baja California region; (2) reinforce mechanisms for
transmitting traditional environmental management con-
cepts from elders to youth; and (3) establish new envi-
ronmental education partnerships among teachers, stu-
dents, and elders.
Accomplishments of this ongoing project include:
- Enviro-Fair for students and teachers (May 1999):
The focus was on environmental education, and some
of the activities included art and essay contests for
students.
- Enviro-Scape (July 1999): The focus was on infor-
mation-sharing, with an emphasis on water and its
relation to natural resources.
- Star-Gathering Celebration: More than 200 par-
ticipants took part in the 509 Grunion Celebration.
Students, teachers, tribal elders, and members of the
Viejas and Bishop reservations came together to cel-
ebrate the relation of stars, air, and the ocean to the
Kumeyaa-Kumiaia culture.
- An environmental education symposium: School
teachers, administrators, and elementary school-aged
youth from native tribes received instruction in the
development of environmental education-specific art
and literary work.
- An environmental education curriculum: The cur-
riculum was translated into English, Spanish, and
the Kumeyaa-Kumiaia languages.
• Environmental Education Planning Seminars
with the Tohono O'odham Nation (Tucson and the
Tohono O'odham Nation) - The EE Exchange
received additional support from EPA in 1998 to
increase environmental education work with the Envi-
ronmental Office of the Tohono O'odham Nation.
The project will begin the process of environmental
education program assessment, planning, and devel-
opment in the nation. The objectives and tasks of
the project are:
- Task 1: Hire an environmental education coor-
dinator to work with both the EE Exchange and the
Tohono O'odham Environmental Office.
- Task 2: Develop a comprehensive survey form and
interview teachers from every school on the nation.
- Task 3: Develop a comprehensive survey form
and interview environmental resource people from
the nation.
- Task 4: Prepare a summary of findings of the
above surveys that identifies specific needs in the
schools and specific opportunities with community
environmental resources.
- Task 5: On the basis of findings of the surveys,
select an environmental education project or projects
and assist the environmental office in the imple-
mentation of the project(s).
- Task 6: Provide follow-up and technical support
for selected environmental education projects
- Task 7: Develop a final project report for the
Tohono O'odham community and EPA.
Accomplishments of this ongoing project include:
- EE Exchange coordinated an environmental edu-
cation needs assessment with the nation. Informa-
tion gathered through interviews was used to create
an abbreviated list titled Environmental Education
Opportunities on the Tohono O'odham Nation. The
list was provided to teachers at the Tohono O'od-
ham Nation Conference on Education.
- In conjunction with the Environmental Office, the
EE Exchange assisted in the development of an envi-
ronmental education survey for teachers on the
nation. An interim report on the nation's schools
was prepared. The report is also part of a compre-
hensive assessment, which will include informal edu-
cation and community, district, and tribal activities.
Other Environmental Education Projects from Border
XXI Grants
• The EE Exchange, located in Tucson, developed the
Border Environmental Education Resource Guide (1998)
to disseminate information about border environmental
education programs and activities being conducted and
educators working in the Arizona-Sonora and Califor-
nia-Baja California regions. The guide was designed to
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
85
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
assist educators in program planning and development
by helping them locate environmental education pro-
grams that could be adapted for use in other border
localities. An expanded version is available on the EE
Exchange web site at www.eeexchange.org.
• The San Diego Natural History Museum, in collab-
oration with the Proyecto Bio-regional de Educacidn Ambi-
ental (PROBEA, or Bio-regional Environmental Educa-
tion Project) a consortium of non-profit organizations
in the San Diego-Tijuana region, developed the Teacher
Training Model for Binettional Watershed and Water Qual-
ity Education and Monitoring to provide training mate-
rials and activities related to watersheds and monitoring
to teachers on both sides of the border.
Assist the Strategic Planning and Evaluation Team in
the Development of Environmental Indicators for the
Border Region
The EIR Workgroup has assumed the role of coordinating
the development of environmental indicators for the border
area to (1) address concerns raised by border communities
about evaluating environmental conditions and pressures
along the border, and (2) assess the overall effectiveness of
environmental policies aimed at the border region.
Environmental indicators serve as a tool for determin-
ing whether U.S.-Mexico environmental policies and imple-
mentation efforts are adequately addressing the most urgent
environmental, human health, and natural resource issues.
In addition, environmental indicators provide an objective
assessment of status and trends in the environment's ability
to support human and ecological health. These indicators
also serve as a gauge of whether environmental programs are
meeting their intended goals along the border.
Each of the nine workgroups developed environmental
indicators for its specific area. Environmental indicators are
developed binationally, and input is requested from border
communities, states, tribes, and other entities having inter-
est in the border. The 1997'Indicators Report ^ffas published
in 1998 in English and Spanish. The report is the first of
its kind for the Border XXI Program and is a significant
first step toward evaluating environmental, human health,
and natural resource conditions along the border.
Given the significant resources needed to develop, obtain,
analyze, and update the necessary environmental data, the
Indicators Report will be published once every two years. It ,
is anticipated that the EIR Workgroup will publish a brief •
pamphlet periodically to present an update on existing envi-
ronmental indicators and to highlight new indicators devel-
oped by the nine Border XXI workgroups.
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
^ « — ^
As previously stated, much of the effort conducted by the
EIR Workgroup includes coordination with other work-
groups, agencies, organizations, and communities to increase
the availability of environmental information along the bor-
der. Therefore, there are few EIR Workgroup milestones
that can be quantitatively measured in a meaningful way.
For that reason, environmental indicators were developed for
two projects, the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI web site and the
geospatial/GIS digital data collection effort.
types of Environmental Indicators
PRESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
D
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
D
RESPONSE:- ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
NUMBER OF HITS ON BORDER XXI WEB SITE
Figure 8-1 on the following page shows the number of hits
on the Border XXI web site from January 1998 through
September 1999.
IT
AMOUNT OF UPDATED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA
USGS has been leading an effort to update the geospatial
data available for the border area. To date, all U.S. border
region l:24,000-scale digital elevation models, digital raster
graphics, PLSS, and boundary digital data files have been
completed.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
86
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Number of Hits on Border XXI Web Site
1,200
Month and Year
A-"hit" is registered each time a person accesses the web site}! Although
the number of hits on the web site is tabulated for informational purposes,
the main goal of the web site is to provide increased access to informa-
tion about the border.
: Status of Updated U.S. CIS Data
Geospatial Data Product * Total Complete
Digital elevation models
Digital raster graphics
CIR photography
CIR digital orthophoto quadrangles
PLSS (California, Arizona, and New Mexico only)
Political boundaries
Hydrography (rivers, lakes, and streams)
Transportation (roads, railroads, and other facilities)
Topographic map sheets
2,581
2,581
12,000
10,324
1,240
2,581
2,581
2,581
2,581
100%
100%
100%
80%.
100%
100%
10%
5%: .
5%
Source: USGS • ';..'-.'.'"
Figure 8-1
The time frames for collecting and revising the hydrog-
raphy and transportation vector data themes and updated
graphic maps and topographic maps will largely depend on
funding availability. However, for planning purposes, a goal
of 2005 has been established to complete all USGS-sup-
ported digital data themes for the 2,581 7.5-minute quad-
Table 8-3
rangles considered to be in the U.S. part of the border region.
Table 8-3 shows the status of the GIS update effort.
This indicator presents an update of the data completion
efforts to date for the U.S. side of the border. The data can
be obtained on the USGS's United States/Mexico Trans-
boundary Mapping and GIS Initiative web site at rmm-
cweb.cr.usgs.gov/publiclusmlindex.htmL Figure 8-2 is an exam-
ple of a GIS map of the border region.
United Sfates Geological Survey
National Mapping Program
San
Blego*' V Calexteo
ales Naco Doughs Park El, Paso
SONORA
3.75 Minute Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles
(DOQs)
•Color Infrared available for sale
«Authorized for production
O 100 Mite buffer along border
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
87
Figure 8-2
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
; OTHER NOTABLE ACTIVITIES
1 AND ACHIEVEMENTS ^ "
In addition to the basic production of geospatial data sets,
some unforseen benefits have emerged. Through partnerships
with the state of Texas, USGS, and the Texas Stratmap Pro-
gram, a seamless, digital elevation model has been created.
The result is that GIS users no longer have to merge eleva-
tion data before they can use it in their GISs. Further, through
other collaborative efforts with state and federal agencies, GIS
users can now access state data, USGS geospatial data sets,
and Mexican maps of areas along the Texas-Mexico border.
This information is provided by the Borderlands Information
Center, the statewide data clearinghouse agency that is part
of the Texas Natural Resources Information System. Cur-
rently, USGS is evaluating the use of CIR digital orthopho-
to quadrangles to produce transboundary photo image maps.
FUTURE
PERSPECTIVES
The EIR Workgroup will continue to provide the border pop-
ulation with environmental information and promote cross-
workgroup linkages to enhance the progress of the Border
XXI Program. Two binational EIR Workgroup meetings will
be held each year to keep the public informed of progress
and to obtain input from stakeholders and the public. One
meeting will coincide with the annual National Coordinators
Meeting, and the second will be held approximately six
months later. The EIR Workgroup will continue to encour-
age public participation in the meetings and to seek greater
participation on the part of states, local governments, tribes,
nongovernmental organizations, and industry.
The EIR Workgroup will focus more efforts on estab-
lishing links with the other Border XXI workgroups and ensur-
ing frequent, consistent, and effective communication of envi-
ronmental information among workgroups and other govern-
ment agencies. In addition, more resources should be devot-
ed to: (1) establishing connectivity between environmental
information systems of both countries; (2) ensuring compat-
ibility of information channels between government agencies;
and (3) establishing data compatibility standards for collect-
ing and disseminating information. The workgroup will work
toward completing this challenging task and will conduct bina-
tional workgroup meetings and seek public input on this issue.
The Subworkgroup on the Release/Exchange of Infor-
mation Project will continue working to increase public access
to important border-related environmental information.
Progress will continue on outreach, non-electronic dissemi-
nation of information in both English and Spanish, and envi-
ronmental education. The subworkgroup will continue to
work on these issues and will develop recommendations on
the steps necessary to move forward.
The EIR Workgroup will continue to facilitate the devel-
opment of environmental indicators and will work with each
of the workgroups to develop and refine environmental indi-
cators to (1) accurately reflect the pressures on and quality
of the border environment, natural resources, and human
health and (2) measure the effectiveness of the efforts under-
taken to alleviate those pressures. The workgroup will also
continue to seek input from entities and individuals having
interests in the border to make the environmental indicators
meaningful and useful to the border community.
The workgroup will also continue to work with the USGS
and its partners to update the hydrography layers, transporta-
tion layers, and topographic maps and to encourage contin-
ued progress in developing a comprehensive GIS database for
the border region. In addition, further experimentation will
be performed on the use of new geospatial technologies to
enhance future data sets along the border. The EIR Work-
group and USGS will continue to promote the use of GIS
among the Border XXI work groups, their partners, and INEGI.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
88
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
|t? - OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL
tot - - ISSUES AND THEMES
?**.'*"*• j^t _^
In the border region, rapid industrialization and the asso-
ciated population increase have created a need
for improved hazardous and solid waste man-
agement infrastructure. Some of the specific
waste issues that have been identified by the gen-
eral public, as well as federal and state agencies,
include the illegal transboundary shipment of
hazardous waste; improper disposal of hazardous
and solid waste; health and environmental risks
posed by inactive and abandoned sites; the need
for proper development of new sites; and the
proper operation and closure of existing sites.
The following sections will discuss (1) the
objectives of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
"Workgroup and progress toward goals, (2) envi-
ronmental indicators of the binational Hazardous
and Solid Waste Workgroup, (3) other notable
activities and achievements, and (4) future per-
spectives.
The Growth of the Maquiladora Industry
The pace of industrialization and population
growth in the border region is most clearly illus-
trated by the growth of the maquiladora industry.
MAQUILADORAS are foreign-owned or -operated
assembly plants that import raw materials into Mex-
ico and assemble finishedproducts, primarily for export.
According to Mexico's Institute National de Estadistica,
Geografia, e Informdtica (INEGI, or National Institute of Sta-
tistics, Geography, and Information), in January of 1993, there
were 2,078 maquiladoras in Mexico. By January 1999, that
figure had risen by more than 50 percent to a total of 3,143
in all of Mexico (Figure 9-1). In the same period, the num-
ber of maquiladora employees doubled, from approximately
515,000 to 1,060,000 (Figure 9-2 on the following page).
The significance of this growth for border hazardous and solid
waste issues is particularly great, given that approximately 80
percent of maquiladoras are located in the border states.
OBJECTIVES OF THE HAZARDOUS
AND SOLID WASTE WORKGROUP
"AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
Annex III of the La Paz Agreement calls for coop-
eration between the U.S. and Mexico on issues of
hazardous and solid waste. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Workgroup was established in the Border XXI
Program in response to the La Paz Agreement. The
workgroups principal goal is to create and imple-
ment programs to improve waste management capa-
bilities on both sides of die border. Following are
the objectives of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Workgroup and the progress made in implementing
those objectives (Table 9-1 on the following page).
Progress Toward Goals
Develop a Vulnerability Atlas for the U.S.-
Mexico Border to Target Geographic Priorities
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Activities
The vulnerability adas is considered to be a regu-
latory tool to assist government and industry in
the evaluation of sites in Mexico under consider-
ation for the installation of hazardous waste man-
agement infrastructure.
Growth of Maquiladoras
1993-1999
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Dafa Tor January of each year
Spurges Twin Plant Guide produced by SOLUNET: Infomax, Inc.
Figure 9-1
The Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment In the Border Area was signed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on February 16, 1984.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Increase in Number of Maquiladora Employees
1993--1999
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
I I I : T
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Data tor January of each year.
Figure 9-2
Objectives
• Develop a vulnerability atlas for the U.S.-Mexico border to tar-
get geographic priorities for solid and hazardous waste manage-
ment activities.
• Improve monitoring of the transboundary movement of haz-
ardous wastes and substances in the border region.
• Continue enforcement activities related to illegal hazardous
waste practices.
• Improve waste management practices and promote solid and
hazardous waste minimization and recycling.
• Build institutional expertise and capability.
Th« objectives listed afcbve
,.r
numbers are Intended -or ease of, referent 'J^!^!:ffi'3r|
importance. ,. : i/ufo ..... i „> iid ........ I '
Table 9-1
Improve Monitoring of the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Wastes and Substances in the Border Region
Currendy, two systems are used to track movement of haz-
ardous waste in the U.S. and Mexico. Each of the systems,
the Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HAZTRAKS), and
the Sistema de Rastreo de Residues Peligrosos (SIRREP, or Haz-
ardous Waste Tracking System), is discussed below.
• Hazardous Waste Tracking System — Over a three-
year period, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Institute National de Ecologta (INE, or
National Ecology Institute) have operated HAZTRAKS
jointly. The system captures the information contained
in INE's export authorizations and EPA's uniform haz-
ardous waste manifests. Over the three years, the sys-
tem and the user manuals have been updated period-
ically. EPA provided training for users in the border
state branch offices of the Secretarta de Media Ambi-
ente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca. (SEMARNAP, or Sec-
retariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fish-
eries) as well as the offices of U.S. state environmen-
tal agencies. Information from the HAZTRAKS data
base is available to the public on EPA's HAZTRAKS
web site at www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6enfh/haztraks/haz-
traks.htm.
• Sistema de Rastreo de Residues Peligrosos - In a
parallel effort in 1997, INE began developing SIRREP.
The system uses the Aviso de Retorno (Notice of Return),
instead of the previously used export authorizations,
with respect to waste generated by the maquiladora
industry. The system replaces the HAZTRAKS system
in the Mexican agencies involved, although the exchange
of information between INE and EPA will continue
because information from the two systems is compat-
ible. Operation of SIRREP began in November 1998
in the SEMARNAP branch offices in the northern bor-
der states, as well as at INE.
SIRREP is currently in normal operation. Howev-
er, it will continue to be modified, with the goal of
adding greater functionality to the system. At present,
the information sent by the SEMARNAP delegations
in the border states is received monthly at INE's Unidad
de Sistemas e Informdtica (Systems and Information
Unit), which maintains a data base of the notices of
return of hazardous wastes from the maquiladora indus-
try in Mexico.
It is worth noting that a 1999 study carried out for
the Texas state legislature by the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) determined that
the operation of the SIRREP and HAZTRAKS systems
is the most effective way of tracking the movements of
hazardous wastes between the two countries.
• Notice of Return for the Maquiladora Industry
in the Border Region - To strengthen the operation
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
90
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
of SIRREP in the delegations of SEMARNAP and the
Procuraduria Federal de Proteccidn al Ambiente (PRO-
FEPA, or Mexico's Federal Attorney General for Envi-
ronmental Protection) in the border states, INE devel-
oped, and published on November 4, 1998, the Pro-
cedimiento Administrative) para el Retorno de los Residues
Peligrosos Generados for la. Industria Maquiladora (Admin-
istrative Procedure for the Return of Hazardous "Wastes
Generated by the Maquiladora Industry), or the Aviso
de Retorno, to replace the export authorization form. The
document will facilitate the exchange of information in
electronic form among maquiladoras and delegations of
SEMARNAP throughout Mexico.
• Waste Code Correlation Dictionary - To facilitate
interpretation and management of waste classification as
provided for in the regulations of Mexico and the Unit-
ed States, an electronic dictionary, available on CD-ROM
from EPA, has been developed to correlate the waste
codes of the two countries. This tool will be critical in
enabling industry to better comply with U.S. and Mex-
ican hazardous waste regulations and in assisting EPA
and INE in binational waste-tracking efforts.
• U.S.-Mexico Hazardous Waste Data Analysis -
The workgroup has completed a comparative analysis
of U.S. and Mexican hazardous waste transport data
and resolved significant discrepancies between the two
data sets collected from HAZTRAKS and SIRREP. A
comparison of the two countries' data for 1996 showed
that, while the United States reported approximately
8,000 tons of waste imported from Mexico in 1996,
Mexican data reported 72,000 tons for the same year.
A careful analysis of the data has shown that this sig-
nificant discrepancy was primarily the result of differ-
ences in the definition of hazardous waste in each coun-
try, as well as systemic differences in waste-tracking
procedures. The workgroup is now able to correlate
the two data sets with 95 percent accuracy and expects
accuracy to increase as Mexico implements changes in
its manifesting system (described above in the discus-
sion of SIRREP).
With regard to the indicators that involve U.S. and
Mexican data for waste transported across the border, it
is important to note that there is a significant difference
between the two nations' numbers. The discrepancy can
be attributed largely to the difference between the U.S.
and Mexican regulatory definitions of hazardous waste.
More than half the volume of waste that Mexico clas-
sified as hazardous in 1997 was considered non-haz-
ardous solid waste under U.S. regulations. Another fac-
tor contributing to the discrepancy is that the two
nations' tracking systems have historically operated very
differently. The Mexican tracking system has used pro-
jected quantities of hazardous waste shipped, while the
U.S. manifest system uses actual quantities of waste
shipped. A final factor that contributes to the differ-
ence is reporting errors, such as the entry of an incor-
rect facility name on the required paperwork.
Continue Enforcement Activities Related to Illegal
Hazardous Waste Practices
• Repatriation Guidelines for Illegally Exported/Impart-
ed Hazardous Waste - The Repatriation Guidelines are
a written set of principles used by EPA and SEMAR-
NAP to facilitate communication and coordination relat-
ed to repatriation of hazardous wastes that have been
exported or imported illegally. The guidelines have been
used on only a few occasions, most significantly to repa-
triate two truckloads of waste with high levels of lead
contamination illegally exported to Guerrero Negro, Baja
California Sur by A&W Smelters and Refiners, Inc.
• U.S. State Enforcement Programs at the Ports of
Entry - The U.S. state participants in the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Workgroup play an active role in
enforcement of the regulations governing transboundary
movement of hazardous waste. Activities undertaken by
the states in this regard include assistance to industry to
help industry better comply with regulations and active
inspection and enforcement programs.
As an example of this important work, in the past three
years, California's Department of Toxic Substances Con-
trol (DTSC) and PROFEPA officials in Baja California
have offered U.S. and Mexican industry eight bilingual
compliance assistance workshops on import-export require-
ments and hazardous waste classification. In addition,
Texas and California have active hazardous waste inspec-
tion programs at the ports of entry. The DTSC program
inspected almost 3,000 vehicles in 1998 for illegal ship-
ments of hazardous waste. From September 1998 to Sep-
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
91
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
tember 1999, TNRCC carried out 88 multi-day inspec-
tion exercises at six different ports of entry along the Texas-
Mexico border. The Arizona Department of Environ-
mental Quality (ADEQ) has also initiated a surveillance
and enforcement program for the transboundary move-
ment of hazardous waste in the Arizona-Sonora border
region. ADEQ. has participated in several multi-agency
interdiction efforts to monitor and identify environmen-
tal infractions at the port of entry in Nogales, Arizona.
Improve "vfeste Management Practices and Promote Solid
and Hazardous Waste Minimization and Recycling.
A number of the projects described under this objective are
also described in the chapter that discusses the activities of
the Pollution Prevention Workgroup. Refer to that chapter
for additional reporting on those projects.
• Red Mexicana de Mango Ambiental de Residues -
As part of the strategy to build capacity for waste man-
agement in Mexico, INE has created the Red Mexicana de
Mango Ambiental de Residues (REMEXMAR, or Mexican
Network for the Environmental Management of Wastes).
Under that structure, INE is creating intersectorial net-
works for the environmental management of wastes, or
technical coordinating units, in each of the states.
REMEXMAR is a national effort to facilitate coor-
dination among: (1) the waste-generating industry sec-
tor, (2) the government as the authority on this issue,
(3) academic institutions, (4) organizations involved in
technical and scientific activities or services related to
waste management, and (5) social interest groups. The
effort is currently coordinated by INE to promote waste
minimization and integrated waste management.
REMEXMAR is a member of the Red Pan-Americana
de Manejo Ambiental de Residues (REPAMAR, or Pan-
American Network for the Environmental Management
of Wastes), which is based in Peru and is coordinated by
the Pan-American Center for Sanitary Engineering and
Environmental Sciences.
The problem of hazardous waste in the border region
creates a need for establishing networks for the environ-
mental management of wastes. The networks foster social
responsibility through the participation and collaboration
of diverse sectors in the design of intersectorial networks
for the minimization and integrated management of haz-
ardous wastes. The networks reflect local interests in a
balanced fashion and present solutions to environmental
problems related to wastes. It is also anticipated that the
members of the networks will evaluate the waste situa-
tion in their areas and identify needs related to infra-
structure and other issues.
In October 1998, the network for the state of Sono-
ra was formed, and, in 1999, networks were formed in
Coahuila, Tamaulipas, and Chihuahua. In 2000, net-
works are planned for Baja California and Nuevo Leon.
EPA representatives on the binational Hazardous and ,
Solid Waste Workgroup will be invited to participate in
those networks. It is expected that, in the future, the
technical units of the border states will take part in meet-
ings of this workgroup.
• Border Waste Wi$e - The original San Diego-Tijua-
na Border Waste Wi$e Program, begun in 1995, was a
partnership of government agencies, academic institu-
tions, and the private sector from both sides of the U.S.-
Mexico border, aimed at reducing manufacturers' gener-
ation of solid waste, with an emphasis on maquiladoras.
The goals of the project were to provide waste reduc-
tion assistance to businesses in the short term and to
increase industry's awareness of, and spark a lasting com-
mitment to, waste reduction in the long term.
The solid waste work undertaken by the Border Waste
Wi$e Program has been highly successful and has been
lauded as a notable example of pollution prevention by
the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB). This
work has included: (1) performance of an analysis of the
waste stream entering the Tijuana landfill; (2) conduct of
27 on-site waste reduction assessments; (3) development
of training and information resources; and (4) conduct of
an inventory of recyclers in the San Diego-Tijuana region.
Further information about the solid waste reduction work
carried out under this project can be found on the Bor-
der Waste Wi$e web site, at www.borderwastewise.org.
Spurred by the success of the first phase of the Bor-
der Waste Wi$e Program, which focused on solid waste,
EPA, in partnership with the Industrial Environmental
Association (IEA) and the Border Trade Alliance, is begin-
ning a second phase of work. The second phase, which
will involve many of the members of the original Bor-
der Waste Wi$e Program partnership, will take a multi-
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
92
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
media approach, encompassing hazardous waste, waste-
water, and energy use. An important aspect of the sec-
ond phase is the goal of sustainability. The program will
assist companies in implementing pollution prevention
recommendations. The IEA will collect fees based on
the companies' cost savings. The fees will be used to
seed a revolving fund at IEA, so that the program will
be self-sustaining, rather than relying on EPA grant funds.
Under that model, the workgroup hopes to create a last-
ing resource for industries in the San Diego-Tijuana
region that wish to work toward pollution prevention.
• Arizona-Mexico International Green Organization -
Begun in 1997 with an EPA grant to ADEQ, the Ari-
zona-Mexico International Green Organization
(AMIGO) aims to bring together industries in Arizona
and Mexico to share ideas and technologies that reduce
waste and pollution and increase profits, worker safety,
and environmental health. During its initial phase,
AMIGO was focused on the Nogales, Arizona-Nogales,
Sonora area, with an emphasis on maquiladoras in
Nogales, Sonora. AMIGO now boasts 28 members,
ranging from maquiladoras to trade associations, and is
expanding its geographic coverage to industry in the
Yuma, Arizona-San Luis Rio Colorado and Agua Prieta,
Sonora areas. Binational work under the AMIGO pro-
gram includes pollution prevention workshops, educa-
tional tours of member facilities to learn about pollu-
tion prevention in a hands-on setting, and an annual
pollution prevention awards program.
• California Department of Toxic Substances
Control Pollution Prevention Workshops - Since 1997,
DTSC has worked in collaboration with PROFEPA and
officials of the Direccidn de Ecologia de Baja California
(Baja California Department of Ecology) to offer five
workshops on pollution prevention for industry in the
border region. These workshops have covered a variety
of topics, including California's pollution prevention pro-
gram, techniques for minimizing hazardous waste gener-
ation in die electronics industry, and reduction in the
generation of volatile organic compounds..
Build Institutional Expertise and Capability
• Sampling and Analysis Training - Training focused
on environmental sampling protocols, techniques, and
legal requirements, has been provided to Mexican envi-
ronmental officials in Mexicali, Baja California; Her-
mosillo, Sonora; and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas. Repre-
sentatives of U.S. states have contributed gready to the
binational training classes by serving as instructors and
facilitators.
• Training for U.S. and Mexican Customs Services
- U.S. state environmental agencies have provided numer-
ous training opportunities to the U.S. Customs Service
and its Mexican counterpart and other law enforcement
officials throughout the border region. The training
courses, focused on hazardous waste identification and
safety procedures, are aimed at improving enforcement
of regulations governing transport of hazardous waste
and increasing the safety of law enforcement personnel
and the public.
• Municipal Solid Waste Work with the Border Envi-
ronmental Cooperation Commission - The EPA staff
on the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup review
proposals for municipal solid waste projects that are under
consideration by the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC) for certification to advise EPA's rep-
resentative on the BECC Board of Directors. In addi-
tion, EPA staff on the workgroup provide input into
BECC and North American Development Bank (NADB)
efforts to develop new solid waste-related programs. State
agencies also work with the BECC and the NADB on
solid waste efforts.
• Hazardous Waste Site Management Training -
Between 1996 and 1998, EPA provided to Mexican envi-
ronmental officials four training courses on the charac-
terization and restoration of sites contaminated with haz-
ardous wastes. The courses were offered in three Mexi-
can border states and in Mexico City.
• Consultative Mechanism between the United States
and Mexico - Through the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Workgroup, Mexico obtained the necessary information
for Mexico's Grupo Intersecretarial sobre Confinamientos de
Residues Peligrosos en la Frontera Norte del Pats (Intersec-
retarial Group on Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites on the
Country's Northern Border) to follow the issues and
address local concerns about such sites. In particular, the
workgroup directed its efforts toward resolving issues relat-
ed to a proposed low-level radioactive waste site in Sier-
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
93
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ra Blanca, Texas. The commissioners of TNRCC decid-
ed to deny a permit for the construction of the site.
This example represents a significant advance in envi-
ronmental cooperation on the border and underscores the
need for binational consultative mechanisms to address
issues of common interest to the two governments. In
response to that need, in December 1999, the co-chairs
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste "Workgroup signed the
Consultative Mechanism for the Exchange of Information on
New and Existing Facilities for the Management of Haz-
ardous and Radioactive Wastes Within 100 Km of the U.S.-
Mexico Border (Consultative Mechanism). The agreement
calls for regular exchange of information about hazardous
and radioactive waste disposal sites, as well as hazardous
waste recycling, treatment, and incineration facilities. The
sharing of information will ensure that each government
will be fully informed of opportunities to review techni-
cal data being considered in facility permitting decisions.
Information exchange also will help both governments
consider the concerns of the public and build public con-
fidence in decisions to establish needed waste manage-
ment infrastructure in the region.
As part of the process created under the Consultative
Mechanism, both countries have, for the first time,
exchanged publicly available comprehensive lists of the
hazardous and radioactive waste facilities located in the
border region. The lists will be available on the Border
XXI web site. In addition to reinforcing the commit-
ment to binational environmental cooperation under the
La Paz Agreement and Border XXI, the Consultative Mech-
anism complements domestic efforts of both countries to
increase transparency in decision making to protect the
health and environment of border communities.
• Active Subworkgroups Established in All Five Bor-
der Regions - Regional subworkgroups of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Workgroup have been established along
the border. The subworkgroups meet jointly with the
subworkgroups of the Cooperative Enforcement and
Compliance Workgroup. Regions covered by the sub-
workgroups now include: California-Baja California;
Arizona-Sonora; Texas-Chihuahua-New Mexico; Texas-
Coahuila; and Texas-Nuevo Le6n-Tamaulipas. The sub-
workgroups are made up of enforcement and regulato-
ry agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.
The subworkgroups meet three to four times a year,
facilitating coordination on a regional basis. The meet-,
ings provide a forum for addressing state, local, and trib-
al concerns related to hazardous and solid waste issues,
including: (1) enforcement cases; (2) tracking trans-
boundary hazardous waste shipments; (3) sharing infor-
mation about hazardous waste facilities and other border
issues; (4) inspecting hazardous waste shipments at U.S.
Customs Service ports of entry; and (5) training environ-
mental and law enforcement officials from both countries.
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
Types of Environmental Indicators
PRESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
D
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
In 1997, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup pub-
lished the seven binational environmental indicators discussed
in this section.
To prepare the indicators, public meetings were held for
discussion with state authorities, universities, and non-
governmental organizations in Tijuana; Hermosillo, Sonora;
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua; Saltillo, Coahuila; Monterrey,
Nuevo Le6n; and Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas to gather the
principal recommendations and develop the final indicators
for the workgroup.
The workgroup has made significant progress on data
availability for many of its indicators. In the 1997 United
States-Mexico Border Environmental Indicators Report (1997
Indicators Report), the workgroup was able to provide direct
data for only two of the indicators, with related data provid-
ed for some of the others. Further, in the first report, all the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup indicators were listed
as "indicators in progress." In this report, the workgroup pro-
vides direct data for almost all of the indicators. While the
workgroup still does not have all the data needed for the indi-
cators, it will provide at least partial data for each indicator.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
94
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
As stated earlier, Mexico and the United States have
reported significantly different amounts of hazardous waste
transported across the border. Within the context of those
data differences, following are the results of the indicators
for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup.
TOTAL AND UNIT GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN THE BORDER REGION
According to INEs data for the six Mexican border states,
the total generation of hazardous waste in 1998 was
1,107,256 tons. In 1999, the total generation was 1,081,537
tons. These data may be modified as new information from
the generators is submitted to INE.
According to EPA data, as seen in Figure 9-3, the total
generation of hazardous waste on the U.S. side of the bor-
der region in 1997 was 17,946 tons. It is important to note
that the tracking system responsible for providing the data
includes only large-quantity generators (that is, those that
generated more than 1.1 tons of hazardous waste per month).
Hazardous! Waste from Large-Quantity Generators
in the Border Region in the, United States (tons)
New Mexico 94
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Figure 9-3
EPA and INE data are not comparable because the clas-
sification of hazardous waste differs in the two countries.
The data for Mexico represent the total waste generated
throughout the Mexican border states, not just in the bor-
der region. Total waste in Mexico includes that which is
generated in the maquiladora, Mexican national industry, and
bio-infectious waste sectors.
The workgroup has not been able to devise an appropri-
ate method of calculating unit generation, such as per-indus-
trial-employee generation or per-dollar-value-of-production gen-
eration. To assess how much hazardous waste is generated on
these bases, very accurate data are needed on how many peo-
ple work in the industries that are generating hazardous waste
or precisely what the value of production is in those industries.
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION IN MAQUILADORAS IN THE BORDER
REGION OF MEXICO
The only data currently available for this indicator concern
the number of maquiladoras in Mexico's border region (Fig-
ure 9-4). The data from Mexico's Secretaria de Comercio y
Fomento Industrial (SECOFI, or Secretariat of Commerce
and Industrial Development), on which these data are based,
report 2,037 maquiladoras in the border region in July 1998
and 2,633 in July 1999. INE does not have data on the
total generation of hazardous wastes by the maquiladora
industry. The kck of available information suggests the need
for activities aimed at obtaining more data.
Distribution of Maquiladoras by Mexican State
1998-1999:
1998 I11999
500
1000
1500
Figure 9-4
QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SENT FROM MEXICO TO THE
UNITED STATES FOR TREATMENT AND/OR DISPOSAL2
According to the information appearing in die reports from
SEMARNAP's branch offices in the border states, the haz-
ardous wastes sent from Mexico to the United States from
1996 to 1999 are as shown in Figure 9-5 on the following
page. It is wordi mentioning diat the wastes exported by
Mexican industry in the greatest quantities are solids with a
high content of vanadium pentoxide, used battery acids, and
used catalyzers. The data suggest a trend toward an increase
Disposition Final).
para Tratamiento y/o
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
95
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
in the amount of those wastes exported, probably because
the appropriate technology and infrastructure needed to man-
age those waste products does not exist in Mexico.
Hazardous Waste Sent from Mexico
to^ the United States (tons)
(by Mexican definition of hazardous waste)
1996
1997
1993
1999
Total
78,037
83,532
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
• Mexican National
Figure 9-5
According to EPA HAZTRAKS data, 11,057 tons
(10,052 metric tons) of hazardous waste were sent to the
United States from Mexico in 1997 (Figure 9-6). Again,
the difference between the numbers is accounted for by the
factors discussed above.
Hazardous Waste Sent from Mexico
to the United States (tons)
(by U.S. federal definition of hazardous waste)
1995
1996
1997
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Figure 9-6
QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED
STATES TO MEXICO FOR RECYCLING
Figure 9-7, which is based on INE data, presents a registry
of total imports of hazardous waste to be recycled in Mexi-
co. The hazardous wastes imported in greater volume
throughout the country are those with a high content of zinc,
tin-lead powders and residues, and automotive batteries.
Hazardous Waste Sent from the United States {
to Mexico (tons) .'• j :
(by Mexican definition of hazardous waste)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Figure 9-7
Numerous factors affect the pattern seen in this indicator.
One important element to be aware of is that one single facil-
ity, located in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon accepts more than half
the total hazardous waste sent to Mexico each year for recy-
cling. The facility recycles electric arc furnace dust from steel
mills in the United States. Another factor related to the increas-
ing trend seen in this indicator is INE's policy of encourag-
ing the development of recycling capacity, as discussed above.
As the number of businesses established for recycling hazardous
wastes has increased in recent years, more hazardous waste from
the United States has been imported for recycling.
D
PERMITTED COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL CAPACITY FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN THE BORDER REGION
Currendy, there is only a single site in Mexico for the final dis-
posal of hazardous wastes. The site is located in Nuevo Leon.
The site's capacity is 1,200,000 tons per year. Mexico has no
permitted disposal capacity in the entire border region. The
lack of disposal sites indicates the urgent need for investment
to develop hazardous waste disposal infrastructure.
The U.S. border region has one commercial disposal site,
located in Westmorland, California. However, on a nation-
al level, the United States has a surplus of hazardous waste
disposal capacity.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
96
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
Hazardous and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities in the U.S.-Mexico Border Area
ARIZONA
Westmorland
CALIFORNIA
CHIHUAHUA
Pacific Ocean
DURANGO ) Monterrey
o Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
El Commercial Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
PERMITTED DISPOSAL CAPACITY FOR SOLID WASTE
IN THE BORDER REGION
There are five sanitary landfills in operation in Mexico's bor-
der region for the permanent disposal of municipal solid
wastes. These sites are located in Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad
Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, and Matamoros. In addition, a num-
ber of proposed projects for the additional final disposal and
appropriate management of municipal solid wastes are being
reviewed by local governments and Mexico's Secretaria de
Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL, or Secretariat of Social Devel-
opment).
The U.S. border region has suitable municipal solid waste
disposal infrastructure. Specifically, within the border region,
there are 27 municipal solid waste landfills in Texas, 10 in
Arizona, 18 in California, and 4 in New Mexico. This infor-
mation is shown on the map in Figure 9-8.
RECYCLING CAPACITY IN THE BORDER REGION
Twenty-three companies are authorized by INE to recycle haz-
ardous wastes in Mexico's border states. Of them, seven are
for used solvents, five for metals, four for used drums, and
three for used lubricants, and four are for integrated handling
Figure 9-8
for the preparation of alternate fuel. It is important to note
that this information is provided for facilities located through-
out Mexico's border states; they are not necessarily within the
100-kilometer (km) (62.5-mile) border zone. Within the 100-
km border region in the United States, there are two com-
mercial recycling facilities. One recycles spent solvents and
the other recycles both solvents and metals (Figure 9-9 on the
following page).
There are several reasons why the number of such facil-
ities in Mexico is much higher than that in the United States.
First, as noted above, the data for Mexico indicates the num-
ber of recycling facilities in the border states, not the 100-
km border region. Second, with some exceptions, the Mex-
ican side of the border is generally more heavily industrial-
ized. Because of that factor, there are more service indus-
tries, such as hazardous waste recyclers, to address the haz-
ardous waste management needs of industry in the Mexican
states. A final reason for this difference has to do with INE's
policy of recent years to strongly encourage hazardous waste
management companies to develop recycling rather than dis-
posal capacity, to reduce the amount of hazardous waste that
must ultimately be sent for disposal.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
97
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities
in the United States and Mexico
In Mexico's Border States
Alternative fuel preparation
Used solvents
Used lubricants
3
Used drums
4
Total: 23
In the U.S. Border Region
Solvents and metals
Used solvents
1
Total: 2
Figure 9-9
OTHER NOTABLE ACTIVITIES
AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Coordination on Radioactive Waste Issues
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup has taken on
responsibility for binational coordination on issues related to
radioactive waste on the U.S.-Mexico border. Previously, no
forum for coordination on environmental issues related to
such waste had existed. When concern was raised by com-
munities on both sides of the border about a proposed
radioactive waste disposal facility in Texas, the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Workgroup assumed responsibility for coor-
dinating communication between the two countries on this
important issue and will continue to serve as a forum for
such communication.
Maquiladora Hazardous Waste Return Requirement
Currently, it is required that hazardous wastes generated by
maquiladoras be returned to the country of origin of the raw
materials used in manufacturing. There has been a great
deal of uncertainty about whether this requirement would
be eliminated with the full phase-in of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the year 2000. EPA and
INE developed a policy paper stating that the requirement
will remain in force after 2000. The continuation of this
requirement is critical for the protection of the environment
along the border in both countries.
w — -B. ,. -fl-.fr. HT * r» -" -T -WE f* ^ -
FUTURE
L. PERSPECTIVES _
With the implementation of NAFTA, the future of the
maquiladora industry is quite uncertain. Although the
maquiladora program will not be eliminated, the incentives
for operating maquiladoras will diminish as tariffs are elim-
inated under NAFTA, because maquiladoras will no longer
be unique in their protection from such tariffs. Therefore,
it is difficult to predict whether the maquiladora sector will
continue to grow as it has in the past. It is possible that
fewer and fewer companies will register as maquiladoras and
that existing maquiladoras will choose to drop their
maquiladora status and operate as Mexican national indus-
tries.
This factor is significant from the perspective of the Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste Workgroup for a number of reasons.
First, different rules govern hazardous waste from maquilado-
ras and that from Mexican national industry. If companies
operating in Mexico, particularly U.S.-based companies,
choose to operate outside the maquiladora. program, they will
not be required to return their hazardous wastes to the Unit-
ed States, thereby further taxing Mexico's already overbur-
dened hazardous waste management infrastructure and pre-
senting greater enforcement challenges for Mexican author-
ities. Therefore, the issue will call for careful scrutiny in the
years to come, and binational cooperation and coordination
will be required to address it fully. A second important
point, however, is that this circumstance also presents an
opportunity for a concerted binational effort to develop haz-
ardous waste management infrastructure in Mexico in a
sound, rational fashion, with a focus on waste minimization
and recycling.
The workplan of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Work-
group has identified the following goals:
• More precisely ascertain the generation of hazardous
wastes in the border region in Mexico, by type and
source.
• Encourage all maquiladoras in the border region to
have a Numero de Registro Ambiental (No. RA, or Envi-
ronmental Registry Number), to improve follow-up on
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
98
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
the cross-border movement of hazardous waste and
achieve compliance with the relevant legislation by the
end of this year.
• Encourage the establishment of hazardous waste infra-
structure in Mexico.
• Increase efforts on solid waste issues, especially focus-
ing on waste tires, creating a national tire recycling pro-
gram in Mexico, with the aim of providing alternatives
to disposal based on application of different technolo-
gies.
• Make more effective use of HAZTRAKS and SIR-
REP.
• Promote policies that minimize generation at the
source through the maquiladora parent companies in the
United States.
• Efforts will be made to persuade border region
maquiladora companies to apply the same environmen-
tal standards and control systems used by the parent
companies in the United States.
• INE will attempt to develop a tracking system for
the import and export of toxic substances that permits
coordination with the SIRREP and HAZTRAKS sys-
tems for tracking hazardous waste.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
99
-------
'? W*
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA), and Mexico's Secretaria de
Media Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP, or
Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and
Fisheries) have been cooperating to manage impor-
tant species and habitat, forestry, and certain nat-
ural protected areas along the border for more than
60 years, starting with the signing of the 1936
Migratory Bird Treaty. The U.S.-Mexico Border
XXI Program Natural Resources Workgroup—for
which DOI and SEMARNAP have the coordina-
tion lead—has provided one more avenue for bina-
tional communication and cooperation.
The natural resource projects discussed in this
chapter were not necessarily initiated under the
Border XXI Program, but they are consistent with
objectives identified in the 1996 U.S.-Mexico Bor-
der XXI Program: Framework Document (Frame-
work Document). Consequently, the Natural
Resources "Workgroup uses Border XXI to report
on ongoing binational and domestic projects that
are consistent with program objectives. While
this chapter does not provide an exhaustive
account of all natural resources activities along
the border, the projects described here-
in do represent efforts in conservation
and sustainable use of natural resources
in the border area that have been
strengthened by binational cooperation.
OVERVIEW
** OF THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES
AND THEMES
The Natural Resources Workgroup focuses on biodi-
versity and conservation, as well as sustainable man-
agement and restoration of natural resources in the bor-
der area. From these topics, the workgroup identified
three areas of interest for its work: biodiversity and
protected areas, conservation of forests and soils, and
marine and aquatic resources. The workgroup also has
provided a forum for identifying common problems in
conservation of ecosystems on the border and for pro-
viding possible solutions to these problems through the
participation of other workgroups.
The principal issues and themes for the Natural Resources
Workgroup include:
• Protecting threatened biological resources
• Reducing the threat of destructive wildfires
along the border
• Maintaining healthy ecosystems for people,
plants, and wildlife
• Measuring progress of the Natural Resources
Workgroups activities
Protecting Threatened Biological Resources
Biodiversity and Protected Areas
From the coastal wedands along the Gulf of Mex-
ico to the Pacific Ocean, the areal extension and
diversity of species being reduced, and important
ecosystems and habitats are shrinking. Diversion
of water, competition with livestock, and popu-
lation growth are among the mounting threats to
sensitive habitats and migration routes. Border
XXI recognizes the need to conserve biological
resources in the border region, particularly spe-
cial status species and hundreds of neotropical
migratory species. Establishing and improving
management of adjacent natural protected areas
along the border, where important
resources are concentrated, is critical to
this effort, and government agencies have
placed increasing emphasis on those
activities. Some of the best opportuni-
ties to improve rangeland, water, and
wildlife management lie in the protect-
ed areas on both sides of the border in
the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts.
There are also opportunities in the adjacent protected areas
to develop new programs in ecotourism and help promote
sustainable economies.
Forest and Soil Conservation
Other key natural resource management issues are main-
taining and improving the health of forests and soils,
completing land use planning, improving cross-border
wildland fire management (see the discussion of the
wildfire issue below), and expanding cooperative research
and data exchange.
NATURAL RESOURCES
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Marine and Aquatic Resources
Freshwater and marine ecosystems in the border region are habi-
tat for a variety of listed species. The rapid growth of rural
and urban communities has particular impact on aquatic and
marine environments, because unchecked growth can lead to
die degradation of water resources. Contamination of habitats,
introduction of exotic species, and losses from illegal extraction
of species have become serious issues in the border region.
Reducing the Threat of Destructive Wildfire along the
Border
The U.S.-Mexico Borderlands Wildfire Protection Agreement
was signed in Mexico City by DOI, USDA, and SEMAR-
NAP on June 4, 1999. It establishes a zone of mutual assis-
tance along the border hi which resources of either nation
can cross the border to fight wildfires. Operating plans will
be developed locally by field offices and other offices respon-
sible for firefighting. The U.S. National Interagency Fire
Center hi Idaho is taking the lead hi providing guidance for
development of the local operating plans. The current issue
is how to effectively implement the agreement and reduce
the threat of destructive wildlife along the border.
Maintaining Healthy Ecosystems for People, Plants, and
Wildlife
The interactions between sustainable natural resources and
humans are complex and difficult to quantify. An underly-
ing premise of Border XXI is that protection and restoration
of habitat for wildlife species can be compatible with sustained
growth of human economies. Developing an understanding
of the carrying capacity of the environment is an essential step
toward sustainability. Many of die projects supported by the
Natural Resources Workgroup assess the life histories and needs
of a variety of species and thereby help to determine the car-
rying capacity of ecosystems. Several of those projects are
described in the following section of this chapter.
Measuring Progress of the Natural Resources Workgroup
Activities
The indicators developed by the Natural Resources Work-
group are intended to measure real changes hi the border
ecosystems, but such measurements remain problematic for
the workgroup. The objectives of the workgroup over the
next few years are centered on gathering data and develop-
ing the tools and relationships to support binational resource
management on the border. Results often will be measured
in terms of program development. Consequently, most of
the current indicators are program indicators. The indicator
measuring quantity of habitat restored, unproved, or receiv-
ing increased protection is the only environmental indicator.
Effective environmental indicators depend on the avail-
ability of appropriate data, including limited baseline infor-
mation about many border wildlife and vegetation species.
In many cases, data bases have not yet been developed to
track and manage the information. Some of the studies and
projects being funded or otherwise supported by DOI will
establish the necessary data bases over the next few years. For
example, a project funded by DOI and begun in fiscal year
1999 is a synthesis and analysis of current habitat conserva-
tion activities along the border. Additional periodic assess-
ments of changes in habitat are needed for a variety of species
along the border. These indicators will eventually provide a
valuable indicator of progress toward habitat protection.
jtKr *~ OBJECTIVES OF THE
t, ,•" NATURAL RESOURCES WORKGROUP
:~ " AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
ik^ J
In the Framework Document, the Natural Resources Work-
group identified management objectives focused on the fol-
lowing three areas: (1) biodiversity and protected areas;
(2) forest and soil conservation; and (3) marine and aquat-
ic resources. There are several subobjectives within the three
main objectives. In these instances, the projects have been
placed under the most representative goal.
Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Objectives: Biodiversity arid Protected Areas
•, Improve and expand the protection of species > and habitats in
the border zone through management of protected areas.
• Increase scientific knowledge and training and promotion of leg-
islation and new conservation rnethods.
• Promote sustainable resource management that improves: the
quality of life of border communities.
• Operate and administer the natural protected areas to guaran-
tee the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems.
• .Improve and expand capacity in management and conservation
of resources, environmental education, and legislation,
• Improve law enforcement for protection of special status^sgecies.
NATU RAL RESOURCES
102
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Improve and Expand the Protection of Species and
Habitats in the Border Zone Through Management of
Protected Areas
• The Sonoran Institute has conducted workshops on
the restoration of riparian habitats of the Santa Cruz
River, an important riparian corridor for neotropical
migratory birds in southern Arizona and northern Sono-
ra. The-workshops have been primarily focused on the
landowners and communities along that river.
• The critical habitat for migratory birds and odier
wildlife provided by the riparian areas along the Upper
San Pedro River in Sonora and Arizona was recognized
hi the 1998 Commission for Environmental Cooperation
report Sustaining and Enhancing Riparian Migratory Bird
Habitat on the Upper San Pedro River. A binational team
has been established to identify common needs and pri-
orities in the upper basin. As a result of binational inter-
est in the conservation of this ecosystem, SEMARNAP
and DOI made a joint declaration in June 1999 to
strengthen cooperation and establish mechanisms to
improve and conserve the natural and cultural resources
of the upper San Pedro River basin. Mexico has begun
studies on the establishment of a natural protected area.
• In 1998, the DOI U.S.-Mexico Border Field Coor-
dinating Committee published two resource guides in
support of its work in the upper San Pedro River basin.
The guides, The Upper San Pedro River Basin of the Unit-
ed States and Mexico, a resource directory and an overview
of natural resource issues confronting decision-makers
and natural resource managers, and San Pedro and Santa
Cruz Rivers Resource Directory, provide a comprehensive
listing of community and agency contacts working on
the upper basin, as well as other useful information.
• Resource preservation and education partnerships have
been established among Chiricahua National Monument,
Coronado National Memorial, and Fort Bowie Histori-
cal Site in southeast Arizona and the Reserva Forestal
Nacional (national forest reserve) Sierras de los Ajos,
Buenos Aires, y La Purica in northeast Sonora. The proj-
ect, which started as a cross-border comparative natural
fire landscape study, has grown into a broad resource
management and protection partnership. The protect-
ed areas share similar sky island ecosystems (small moun-
tain ranges in the desert that contain unique habitats),
and the partners are now cooperating in their work on
management planning, grant applications, interpretation,
prescribed fire management, and facility and education
planning. Monitoring of fire effects on burn plots is
continuing and has already improved prescribed burn
planning, education, and recreation facilities. The part-
ners are also continuing to survey bats, reptiles, and
birds.
• The recovery and conservation of the Sonoran prong-
horn (a type of antelope) is a key project for the Sono-
ran Desert partners: SEMAKNAP/Instituto Nacional de
Ecologta (INE, or National Institute of Ecology), the Insti-
tuto del Media Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del
Estado de Sonora. (IMADES, or Sonora Institute for the
Environment and Sustainable Development), the Reserva.
de la Biosfera (biosphere reserve) El Pinacate-Gran Desier-
to de Altar, the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge,
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and the Ari-
zona Game and Fish Department. These partners, along
with other organizations, are members of the binational
recovery team for the Sonoran pronghorn. The recov-
ery team is working to establish and maintain separate,
viable pronghorn populations in the United States and
Mexico. In addition, the Sonoran Desert partners are
cooperating to develop population censuses and habitat
assessments and to collect data on life histories. This
ambitious effort has been supported by the 1997 letter
of intent between DOI and SEMARNAP for coopera-
tion in management of border protected areas.
• Excellent progress has been made on a cooperative bina-
tional project to manage and research species of mutual
concern hi the Rio Grande region, which includes Big
Bend National Park, die Areas de Proteccidn de Flora y
Fauna (flora and fauna protected areas) Maderas del Car-
men and Can6n de Santa Elena, Big Bend Ranch State
Park, and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area. A
regional population study has been completed, and mon-
itoring of the peregrine falcon continues. In addition,
scientists have begun to study black bear genetic diversi-
ty, to inventory fish in U.S.-Mexico contiguous protect-
ed areas at the Rio Grande, and to determine the status
of the Big Bend mosquito fish.
• Scientists are studying habitat suitability and popula-
tion in the wetlands of the lower Colorado River of the
NATURAL RESOURCES
103
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Yuma clapper rail, an endangered bird. The primary
objectives are to determine the habitat used by the clap-
per rail, the changes in population and its demograph-
ics, and the extent of selenium contamination in eggs.
A preliminary survey was completed in 1998. Addi-
tional results will be available over the next two years.
Partners on the study include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), DOI; the Arizona Game and Fish Depart-
ment; the University of Arizona; SEMARNAP/INE; the
Sonoran Institute; and others. These partners continue
the studies in 2000 and will expand the study to include
other aquatic life and birds of the wetlands.
• Genetic studies have been conducted on the Gould's
turkey, a common species found in the Sierra Madre
Occidental of Mexico and in Arizona. Turkeys have
been transferred from Chihuahua and Sonora to the
Huachuca Mountains and the Galviro Mountains in Ari-
zona. Although the project has been concluded, the
Arizona Game and Fish Department will continue to
support studies and monitor the species in Mexico. Pro-
jects are jointly funded by the Wild Turkey Federation;
the Forest Service (USFS), USDA; and the Arizona Game
and Fish Department.
Other habitat and species studies in which the Natural
Resources Workgroup is directly involved include:
• The Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum and its part-
ners have conducted a study of diversity and direats to
ironwood habitats to compare the uniqueness and vul-
nerability of ironwood in Pima County, Arizona with
those in other areas of the Sonoran Desert. Ironwood
habitats, which are considered "old growth" forests of the
Sonoran Desert, are being overexploited and are dwin-
dling in size. The results of this project are available
from the Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum.
• Between 1991 and 1999, officials authorized and
imported from Texas to Nuevo Ledn a total of 594
white-tailed deer, 20 mule deer, and 381 wild turkeys.
These surplus wildlife resources of Texas were imported
to repopulate areas or to improve the density of popu-
lations of these species on private ranches. The ranch-
es, designated as Unidades de Manejo y Aprovechamien-
to Sustentable de la. Vida. Silvestre (UMAS, or Units of
Management and Sustainable Use of Wildlife), are estab-
lished in the border zone of Mexico, where the species
are distributed. The UMAS owners financed the cost
of capturing, permitting, and transporting the species.:
Government wildlife officials will continue to import \
surplus wildlife from Texas to Mexico. ;
• In 1997, Mexico conducted aerial surveys of the Sono- .
ran pronghorn in Baja California, Sonora, and Chi-
huahua to register geographic location, size, and popu-,
lation structure. The principal activities underway in'
pronghorn territory were also classified. Similar surveys
were conducted in 1998 in Coahuila. In addition, habi-
tat and the abundance of predators (coyotes) were eval- .
uated in the area of La Perla, Camargo, and an evalua-
tion was initiated in the zone of Socco, Chihuahua. i
Inspections were carried out to locate new groups of!
pronghorn and to evaluate habitat conditions. Signifi-
cant pronghorn populations were identified in Chi-
huahua. The most important areas of the pronghorn
population in Sonora were located, and the principal fac- ;
tors that impact that population were identified.
• In Mexico, ecological and demographic studies are
being conducted on the Sonoran pronghorn, die bighorn
sheep, the black bear, ironwood, and mesquite for con-
servation, recovery, and sustainable use—a concept that
is fundamental to the UMAS. :
• Through the establishment of UMAS, scientists are'.
identifying habitats for priority species, such as the!
bighorn sheep, the black bear, the pronghorn, ironwood,,
and various cacti. More than 1,600 UMAS have been
established in the Mexican border states to help con-
serve and manage species that require special protection.
• DOI is supporting a survey of threatened and endan-
gered species on tribal lands along the border. Scien-
tists and tribal representatives are documenting special
status species, counts, habitat surveys, and life histories
on the Cocopah and Pasqua Yaqui Indian reservations.
A workshop on the project is planned this year.
Increase Scientific Knowledge, Training, Promotion of
Legislation and New Conservation Methods
• Natural resources managers in the Western Sonoran
Desert are cooperating on an extensive project to improve
protected area management with the use of geographic
information system (GIS) tools. Various federal and state
NATURAL RESOURCES
104
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
agencies, including the U.S. Air Force, are working with
personnel from the biosphere reserves El Pinacate-Gran
Desierto de Altar and Alto Golfo de California to pro-
vide training on GIS equipment, improve data bases,
develop regional maps, and acquire equipment for the
reserves.
• DOI scientists are developing a gap analysis of the
border area from Ciudad Juarez to Big Bend Nation-
al Park, identifying the "gaps" where native animal
species and natural communities are not adequately
represented in the existing network of conservation
lands. A data base containing biodiversity informa-
tion has been produced. SEMARNAP is developing
a similar gap analysis data base for border areas in
Mexico, using the ongoing vegetation classification,
protected area information, and biodiversity data.
• DOI, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Environ-
mental Information Resource (EIR) Workgroup, and
Mexico's Institute Nacional de Estadlstica, Geografia, e
Informdtica (INEGI, or National Institute of Statistics,
Geography, and Information) are working to coordinate
border zone aerial photography and to produce base cat-
egory mapping. The products of these efforts will be
used as baseline maps for management of natural
resources on the border. Soil mapping, vegetation map-
ping, and watershed mapping are some examples of how
the base category mapping will be applied.
- Full aerial coverage of the U.S. border zone has
been completed. Partial coverage of the Mexican
border zone has been completed, and work is con-
tinuing.
- Digital elevation modeling of about 15 percent
of the U.S. zone has been completed.
- About 50 percent of the infrared digital orthopho-
to quadrangles in the U.S. zone have been com-
pleted. By the end of 2000, 80 percent of the quad-
rangle will be completed.
Future binational digital mapping and a variety of GIS
applications will be built on the foundation of this impor-
tant aerial photography.
• Scientists are conducting a binational study of con-
taminants in prey species in Big Bend National Park and
the flora and fauna protected area Maderas del Carmen.
The work on peregrine falcons by the USGS Biological
Resources Division and SEMARNAP is improving access
to (1) ecosystem data and trends, (2) information about
threats to biological diversity, and (3) ecosystem integrity.
• USGS, the National Park Service (NFS), the FWS,
and other U.S. state and private partners are working in
cooperation with the Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (Nation-
al Institute of Fisheries), the Procuraduria Federal de Pro-
teccidn alAmbiente (PROFEPA, or Mexico's Federal Attor-
ney General for Environmental Protection), and SEMAR-
NAP in Mexico to conduct nesting surveys of the endan-
gered Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Public education and
increased beach patrols are having a positive effect on the
ridley and loggerhead turtle populations.
• Scientists are mapping and evaluating vegetation in
the riparian zones and wetlands in the Colorado River
Delta. A data base will be developed with the informa-
tion collected and will be used to (1) help in the analy-
sis of vegetative response to the 1997 and 1998 floods
and (2) support management decisions about neotropi-
cal migratory birds and other species of special concern.
• DOI is sponsoring a study to characterize flow of the
lower Rio Grande, determine the instream flow and other
habitat needs of native fish and riparian vegetation, and
guide protective management actions along the river.
Data collection has begun, and an initial report will be
completed this year.
• The DOI Field Coordinating Committee has started
a synthesis of current habitat conservation activities along
the U.S.-Mexico border. The synthesis will identify data
gaps in conservation, and will indicate where resources
should be directed.
Promote Sustainable Resource Management That
Improves Quality of Life of Border Communities
• Natural resources managers and local nongovern-
mental organizations in the western Sonoran Desert are
working on several projects to encourage sustainable eco-
tourism and educate local communities, such as bilin-
gual educational materials about the ecology and natu-
ral protected areas of the western Sonoran Desert, a video
on the lower Colorado River ecosystem, and a wildlife
viewing tower in Cienaga de Santa Clara, an important
wetland in the biosphere reserve Alto Golfo y Delta del
Rio Colorado. The purpose of these projects is to raise
NATURAL RESOURCES
105
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
public awareness and support for the conservation of the
western Sonoran Desert.
• Tour operators, residents, land managers, and con-
servationists have established La Ruta de Sonora Eco-
tourism Association (La Ruta), a non-profit organiza-
tion to promote ethical and community-based eco-
nomic development. The organization encourages vis-
itors to use natural protected areas in a sustainable
manner, provides benefits to local communities adja-
cent to the protected areas, and directs dividends to
conservation priorities. Even though La Ruta is not
a formal part of the Natural Resources Workgroup,
the objectives of the organization are consistent with
those of the workgroup, and the workgroup supports
La Ruta activities.
Operate and Administer the Natural Protected Areas
to Guarantee the Conservation of Biodiversity and
Ecosystems
• At the end of 1997, park rangers from Big Bend
National Park and personnel from the flora and fauna
protected areas Maderas del Carmen and Candn de Santa.
Elena conducted the first joint patrol of the Rio Grande.
The river patrols take place on raft to access remote
areas and enable rangers to inspect the state of natural
resources while checking on visitors. The patrols help
to spread the message of the importance of protecting
the river to communities located in the natural protected
areas and along the river.
• SEMARNAP has been working to provide basic per-
sonnel, equipment, vehicles, and financial resources and
develop and implement natural resource management
plans in the six natural protected areas on the border.
Four natural protected areas already are operating with
management plans.
• Two meetings in each of the two pilot regions of the
Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts were conducted as a
direct result of the issuance of the DOI-SEMARNAP
Letter of Intent to Enhance Cooperation in Adjacent Nat-
ural Protected Areas (LOI).
The Sonoran Desert pilot region includes:
- Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
- Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
- Imperial National Wildlife Refuge
- Special management areas administered by the
Bureau of Land Management
- Biosphere reserve Alto Golfo de California y Delta •.
del Rio Colorado in Baja California and Sonora
- Biosphere reserve El Pinacate Gran Desierto de
Altar
The Chihuahuan Desert pilot region includes:
- Big Bend National Park in Texas
- Big Bend Ranch State Park in Texas
- Blackwater Gap Management Area in Texas
- Flora and fauna protected areas Maderas del Car-
men in Coahuila
- Flora and fauna protected areas Cafi6n de Santa ,
Elena in Chihuahua
• Representatives of the various natural protected areas;
federal, state, and municipal agencies; nongovernmental •
organizations (NGO); and universities and members of:
indigenous communities participated in the binational
meetings. Projects of common interest were established
between the adjacent natural protected areas. Various
projects have been carried out, including (1) the exchange
of personnel, (2) the implementation of training capac-
ity-building activities, and (3) the development of inven-
tories of species and cultural resources.
• The wetlands of the Alto Golfo de California y Delta
del Rio Colorado were included on the 1996 list of impor-
tant international wetlands (the Ramsar Convention),
which will heighten public awareness of the importance
of the wedands. Different entities are working to pro-
tect the wetlands through studies, monitoring, and
improved coordination. The International Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC) established a fourth task force
on the delta of the Colorado River. On May 18, 2000,
DOI and SEMARNAP issued a Joint Declaration to
Enhance Cooperation in the Colorado River Delta.
Improve and Expand Capacity in Management and Con-
servation of Resources, Environmental Education, and
ation
• Two training courses in protected area management
are presented each year (one each in the United States
and Mexico) for natural protected area personnel. Course
topics include education about natural resources law
NATURAL RESOURCES
106
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
enforcement in protected natural areas, ecotourism, and
general resource management. NPS, INE, and Profau-
na, A.C., are the principal supporters in implementing
the course.
• The Sonoran Institute, DOI, SEMARNAP, and
IMADES have been holding workshops with landown-
ers and communities along the Santa Cruz River in Sono-
ra to develop a community-based approach to the restora-
tion of desert vegetation in the Santa Cruz basin in the
United States and Mexico. A compendium of ecologi-
cal activities in the area has been published and is avail-
able from the Sonoran Institute.
• Project Diablos is a program that has increased the
binational capacity to manage wildfires in the border
protected areas in the Big Bend-Maeteras del Carmen-
Canon de Santa. Elena region. NPS organizes and reg-
ularly presents a basic firefighter course for Mexican fire-
fighters. The binational wildfires agreement, signed
recendy by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the Sec-
retary of SEMARNAP, and the Undersecretary of Agri-
culture, will provide additional opportunities for coop-
eration in training and firefighting in the area.
• Staff of adjacent protected areas in the western Sono-
ran Desert, the NPS, FWS, and INE held a bination-
al workshop in restoration practices and techniques for
riparian and desert habitats. The following activities
were included in the program: a desert restoration work-
shop in 1998; a riparian habitat restoration project in
the Cienaga El Doctor of the biosphere reserve Alto
Golfo de California, y Delta del Rio Colorado and in the
Martinez Marsh wetlands of the United States; a work-
shop on the restoration of riparian habitat in the Col-
orado River delta; and a binational workshop on man-
agement and restoration of the Colorado River delta
in 1998.
• Two U.S.-Mexico border states conferences on recre-
ation, parks, and wildlife were held in Hermosillo, Sono-
ra and Tucson, Arizona in 1997 and 1998, respectively.
Between 100 to 200 people involved in the conserva-
tion of borderlands natural resources attended the con-
ferences to exchange information and present papers on
current research and activities.
• The Arizona Game and Fish Department and the
Centra Ecologico de Sonora (Sonora Center for Ecology)
conducted a Project WILD workshop in 1999. More
than 30 teachers participated. Both organizations will
begin an exchange program for environmental educators.
In addition, the department conducted nine free educa-
tor workshops and trained more than 200 educators
(classroom teachers and youth leaders) in Tucson, Yuma,
and Nogales.
Improve Law Enforcement for Protection of Special
Status Species
Activities in fulfillment of this objective were transferred to
the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup.
Activities conducted in this focus area include:
• Coronado National Forest and die national forest
reserve Sierras de Los Ajos, Buenos Aires, y La Purica have
developed a sister forest program. To date, the program
has succeeded in: (1) fighting several border area wild-
fires; (2) providing firefighting training sessions; (3) con-
ducting studies of priority species, such as the Mexican
spotted owl; and (4) providing education in natural
resources management for the communities and ejidos
(common lands) in the border zone. In 1998, with sup-
port from the U.S. Agency for International Develop-
ment (USAID), national forest reserve Sierras de los Ajos,
Buenos Aires, y La Purica promoted the project Detec-
tion, Prevention, and Combating Forest Fires in Northeast
Sonora. As a result, the staff of the national forest pre-
serve installed radio communication equipment and a
detection tower in the reserve and a cabin for the fire-
fighting brigades.
• An evaluation was conducted of the potential risks
that cross-border insects and diseases may pose to forests
in the U.S.-Mexico border area. To reduce these risks,
inspection activities are increasing. Forest protection per-
sonnel are being trained to identify insects and diseases
along the border.
NATURAL RESOURCES
107
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Forest and Soil Conservation
Objectives: Forest and Soil Conservation
• Encourage conservation and sustainable use of forest and
rangeland resources through collaboration with local communities
and public participation.
• Monitor and enforce regulations.
• Build links between research and resource management.
» Promote education at the local level.
• Undertake efforts to stop desertification and increase green
areas by discouraging the use and consumption of certain flora.
• Ensure that proposed projects and activities that may adverse-
ly impact the use and conservation of natural resources are in
compliance with environmental regulatory requirements.
To avoid introduction of disease at quarantine levels, SEMAR-
NAP processed from 1996 to 1998 an average of 2,433 tech-
nical plant health requirements, under Mexico's sanitary reg-
ulations, for the importation of forest products and by-prod-
ucts. On average, 48 international plant health certifications
were issued annually, guaranteeing the health quality of for-
est products and by-products for export to the United States.
In support of these activities, inspection personnel from
PROFEPA in the northern border customs office made tax-
onomic determinations and gave decisions for 644 entomo-
logical and pathologic specimens from imported forest prod-
ucts. Other activities implemented by PROFEPA are pre-
sented in the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance
Workgroup chapter.
Other projects are:
• From 1996 to 1998, through Mexico's Programa
National de Reforestaci6n (PRONARE, or National Refor-
estation Program), the Cooperative Enforcement and
Compliance Workgroup completed the following restora-
tion activities in Mexican border municipalities, using
88 different native species:
- Collected 2,668 kilograms of germplasm (seeds)
- Produced 7,364,353 plants
- Planted 5,959,295 plants
- Reforested 5,959 hectares
• In 1998, four border areas were declared ecological
restoration zones affected by fires. Three are located in
Cananea, Sonora, with a surface area of 676 hectares,
and one is located in Arteaga, Coahuila, with a surface
area of 5,100 hectares.
• During 1997 and 1998, voluntary practices for
improving soil conservation and forest production in the
border region of Mexico began with the implementation
of the Programas de Manejo de Tierras (PMT, or Land
Management Programs). In 1997, 147 PMTs were pro-
duced for 4,308 hectares. In 1998, 166 PMTs were
produced for 4,171 hectares in Tamaulipas.
• USFS has presented several training programs relat-
ed to the disease risk project described above. In 1998,
five training courses were presented to Mexican techni-
cians from SEMARNAP to improve verification of the
health of imported Christmas trees and identify quar-
antine-significant diseases. SEMARNAP personnel were
given additional training on health regulations.
• USFS, Pennsylvania State University, and SEMAR-
NAP collaborated on a study of the impact of air pol-
lution in the forests of the western and eastern regions
of the U.S. and Mexico. In the first phase of the study,
which concluded in 1998, cooperators developed stan-
dardized methods of measuring levels of ozone, nitro-
gen, and sulfur to identify pollution damage in forests.
They also identified forest species that can be used as
bio-indicators. The second phase of the study will be
initiated in 2000.
• USFS and SEMARNAP are working together to estab-
lish a training program on best management practices
for sustainable development. As part of the effort, the
collaborators are promoting the involvement of resource
producers from Ejido Bassaseachic, Chihuahua. A train-
ing course and the eventual publication of a manual of
best management practices are planned.
• Two technical personnel from Ejido El Largo-Madera,
Chihuahua, were trained in the use of equipment and
software to digitalize information about forest resources.
The USFS donated equipment and participated with
SEMARNAP in the training and will continue to serve
as advisor to the project.
• In 1996, the Arizona Game and Fish Department con-
ducted a wildlife law enforcement undercover operations
training for six PROFEPA wildlife officers. The group of
managers will be the first wildlife law enforcement unit
in Mexico dedicated solely to undercover operations.
NATURAL RESOURCES
108
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Marine and Aquatic Resources
Objectives: Marine and Aquatic Resources
• Protect, conserve, and restore marine and freshwater ecosys-
tems in the border area, with an emphasis on threatened and
endangered species and their habitats/ : ' •
• Promote sustainable aquaculture.
• Initiate training and education programs and outreach activities.
• Strengthen compliance with legislation arid regulation. ;
Activities conducted in this focus area include:
• Mexico has carried out studies of marine species that
have protected status, such as the totoaba and the vaqui-
ta, two species endemic to the upper Gulf of California,
whose populations are in danger of extinction. Other
activities include: management and planning for the mar-
itime terrestrial zone; environmental impact evaluations;
and outreach on the lower Colorado River, among others.
• In Mexico, coastal zone management was imple-
mented through coordination in municipalities of the
northern border through the Programa Especial de
Aprovechamiento Sustentable de las Playas (Special Pro-
gram of Sustainable Use of Beaches). Almost 85 kilo-
meters of coastline was delineated in the Zana Federal
Marttimo Terrestre y Terrenos Ganados al Mar (Federal
Maritime and Terrestrial Zone).
• Within the framework of the Rural Aquaculture Pro-
gram, initiated in 1995 by SEMARNAP, the principal
aquaculture activities carried out with the states and
municipalities on the border have consisted of repopu-
lating small bodies of water, including rivers, streams,
and watersheds. From 1995 to 1998, in the six border
states in Mexico, 3.8 million fish were bred. Some bor-
der municipalities have carried out the fish breeding in
tanks and small reservoirs, with that effort becoming the
major aquaculture activity in Ensenada, Mexicali, Mata-
moros, Reynosa, Ascensi6n, Ciudad Juarez, Manual Bena-
vides, Guadalupe, Acufia, Hidalgo, Anahuac, Agauleguas,
Melchor Ocampo, China, and Trevifio, among others.
Likewise, larger dams, such as Falcon, R. Matters, Angos-
tura, and La Amistad, have also benefitted.
jt-.. ENVIRONMENTAL
I'- INDICATORS
s"— - - - _ .i. > ^^
The following accomplishments and data are grouped accord-
ing to the appropriate indicator originally presented in the
1997 United States-Mexico Border Environmental Indicators
Report (1997 Indicators Report). The number of accomplish-
ments reported under each indicator does not represent all
work performed in the border area. Indicator data from
wildlife management agencies in California, New Mexico,
and Texas were not available for inclusion here. Addition-
al work is needed to develop data bases for all indicators
that provide meaningful, well-defined baseline data that are
easily collected on a regular basis.
Types of Environmental Indicators
F'RESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
INDICATORS OF BINAHONAL COOPERATION IN
RESOURCE INVENTORIES AND MANAGEMENT
NUMBER OF BINATIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INVENTORIES
AND ASSESSMENTS FOR SOILS, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE
• At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, numer-
ous species are being monitored, including 13 lizard
species, 10 small nocturnal rodent species, 61 bird species,
and 14 species of bats: 5 (counting only broad categories
of species).
• Soil surveys have been completed in natural protected
areas in the United States, including Chiracahua Nation-
al Monument; Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge;
Coronado National Forest; Organ Pipe National Monu-
ment; southern Cochise County, Arizona; the Ajo, Ari-
zona area; and the southern portion of the Colorado River
basin: 7.
• The Arizona Game and Fish Department collaborat-
ed on and/or funded (through Heritage grants, which
are revenues from the Arizona State Lottery) projects to
assess the status and ecology of shovelnosed and leafnose
NATURAL RESOURCES
109
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
snakes in and near Organ Pipe Cactus National Mon-
ument. Other species inventoried include the desert
Massasauga rattlesnake; the Mexican rosy boa; the Ajo
Mountain whipsnake; the Huachuca tree; the Chiricahua
and barking frogs; several bat species in the Buenos Aires
National "Wildlife Refuge; amphibian and reptile inven-
tories at Sulphur Springs Valley, "Whetstone mountains,
and San Bernardino National Wildfile Refuge; and the
Tarahumara frog, the flat-tail horned lizard, and thick-
billed and maroon-fronted parrots in Mexico: 16.
• A partial list of studies in Mexico financed by INE of
regional inventories of species and habitats includes the
following: mammals of the northern border, inventory of
flora and fauna of the marine coastal region of the north-
east of the Gulf of California, status of beaver in the Mex-
icali Valley, inventory of the flora and fauna of Laguna
Madre (a water body along the eastern coasts of Texas and
TamauUpas), biological diversity of the meadows or prairies
of northeastern Mexico, land mammals of Baja California,
and a reassessment of flora on the river banks and in ripar-
ian areas in the border area of the state of Sonora: 7.
• Additional studies of populations in Mexico include
those of bighorn sheep, the Sonoran pronghorn, the
black bear, and the marine turtle and inventories of iron-
wood and mesquite: 6.
• Current studies of species in natural protected areas
in Mexico include those of the status of the Yuma clap-
per rail in the biosphere reserve Alto Golfo de Califor-
nia, y Delta del Rio Colorado, conservation and recovery
of the pronghorn and ironwood habitats, the status of
the desert pupfish in the biosphere reserve El Pinacate
y Gran Desierto de Altar, and an inventory of vegetation
in the flora and fauna protected area Cafidn de Santa
Elena', 5.
• Binational inventories have been reported by the
USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD). An inven-
tory of peregrine falcons at Big Bend National Park and
the flora and fauna protected area Maderas del Carmen
is in progress. Also in progress is the BRD gap pro-
gram conducting vegetation analysis along the Texas-
Mexico border: 2.
• Other inventories reported by both the United States
and Mexico include: the Rio Grande riparian vegetation
analysis (and instream flow determination), vegetation
mapping and habitat assessment of the Colorado River
Delta, GIS work at the biosphere reserve El Pinacate-
Gran Desierto de Altar and Organ Pipe Cactus Nation-
al Monument, a black bear study at Big Bend Nation-
al Park, an additional ironwood study, and beaver and
fish inventories: 7.
• The Arizona Game and Fish Department conducted
routine annual and semi-annual surveys of target species
in the border area, including deer, the pronghorn, the
bighorn sheep, the javelina, the white-winged dove, the
Gambel's scaled and Mearns' quails, the turkey, the sand-
hill crane, and waterfowl: 10.
TOTAL NUMBER OF BINATIONAL INVENTORIES AND ASSESS-
MENTS FOR VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: 56 !
OF SOIL USES, AND VEGETATION AND WATERSHED BOUNDARY
MAPPING IN CROSS-BORDER PROJECTS
• USGS is directing a border area aerial mapping proj-
ect. One hundred percent of the U.S. side of the bor-
der has been photographed. "Watershed delineations at
the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (watersheds from some
50,000 acres to 200,000 acres) are being prepared from.
digital elevation maps. "Watershed mapping has been
completed for approximately 2.2 percent of the border
area on the U.S. side.
I NUMBER OF TRAINING COURSES AND WORKSHOPS IN NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR PROTECTION
OF SENSITIVE SPECIES, AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
AND NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN THESE TRAINING
COURSES AND WORKSHOPS
• BLM provided GIS training to resource management
staffs of border protected areas in Arizona. The empha-
sis was on establishing a common GIS system in bios-
phere reserve El Pinacate-Gran Desierto de Altar and bios-
phere reserve Alto Golfo de California y Delta del Rio Col-
orado: 2.
• Two training courses were sponsored by NFS and
INE and were given by Profauna AC.: 2.
• As part of the exchange program in the adjacent nat-
ural protected areas in the western Sonoran Desert, a
desert restoration workshop was held in 1998. Ripari-
an habitat restoration projects were conducted in the
CiSnaga El Doctor of the biosphere reserve Alto Golfo y
Delta del Rio Colorado and the Martinez Marsh wetlands.
NATU RAL RESOURCES
110
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
A workshop on riparian habitat restoration in the Col-
orado River delta and a binational workshop on man-
agement and restoration of the Colorado River delta,
were held in 1996 and 1998, respectively: 4.
• Additional NFS-sponsored training courses include
the annual course Getting To Know Mexico (last offered
in 1998) and a workshop on grazing management: 2.
• Two United States-Mexico border states conferences
on recreation, parks, and wildlife were held in Hermosillo,
Sonora and in Tucson, Arizona in 1996 and 1998, respec-
tively: 2.
• Elementary school education in watershed resource
management in the communities on the Rio Grande in
west Texas and Chihuahua is being developed as a pro-
gram for teachers: 1.
• An education program for children in three Sonoran
desert communities, Puerto Penasco, Sonora; Ajo, Ari-
zona; and Hickiwan, Arizona on the Tohono O'odham
Nation, has been jointly funded by BLM, NPS, the Inter-
national Sonoran Desert Alliance, and the individual com-
munities. Education and experience hi recycling and
international cooperation are provided: 3.
• The Arizona Game and Fish Department reports a
variety of training sessions and educational workshops
in the United States. They include a seminar on turkey
research and management, and a variety of training ses-
sions on management techniques for endangered species,
including law enforcement. The total number of train-
ing programs is not available.
TOTAL OF COURSES AND WORKSHOPS, NOT INCLUDING THE
SEVERAL ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT TRAINING
PROGRAMS: 18
FIRES AND OTHER WILDFIRES HAVING THE POTENTIAL
TO CROSS THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER OR TO
THREATEN SENSITIVE SPECIES HABITAT
The agreement between DOI, USFS, and SEMARNAP on
border wildland cooperative fire management was signed in
1999. No fires have yet been reported on lands managed
by agencies of DOI under the new management. A total
of four fires meeting the criteria of this indicator were report-
ed among the USFS accomplishments in the Natural Resources
Workgroup 1999-2000 Projects Report. Cooperative sup-
pression of the fires was completed before the new agree-
ment under an existing agreement between the USFS and
SEMARNAP: 4 (fire prevention projects in the rural areas
of Sonora and Chihuahua).
INDICATORS OF HABITAT AND SPECIES
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
B
NUMBER OF SITES AND QUANTITY OF HABITAT IN PROJECTS,
DESIGNATIONS/AND AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE INCREASED
PROTECTION, RESTORATION, OR IMPROVEMENT OF NATIVE
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE SPECIES IN WETLANDS, RIPARIAN
AND AQUATIC AREAS, FOREST LANDS, AND
DESERT UPLANDS AND GRASSLANDS
• The Arizona Game and Fish Department reports six
land acquisitions in four border counties in Arizona that
have significantly increased protection on a total of 2,367
acres of aquatic and riparian habitat.
• A land acquisition by the FWS along the Lower Rio
Grande River has recently been completed. New pro-
tection measures are being implemented.
El
UMBER OF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED FROM RECOVERY PLANS,
AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER RECOVERY EFFORTS FOR SENSITIVE
FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES
• The Arizona Game and Fish Department reports proj-
ects implemented from recovery and management plans
and conservation agreements on the Gila topminnow;
the desert pupfish; a variety of native fish in Sycamore
Creek, Santa Cruz County; ranid frogs; the Sonoran
desert tortoise; the flat-tail horned lizard; the New Mex-
ico ridgenose ratdesnake; the Yuma clapper rail; the cac-
tus ferruginous pygmy owl; the southwest willow fly-
catcher; the Sonoran pronghorn; and the jaguar; as well
as bat management and development of the Arizona
Breeding Bird Atlas; 14.
• The USGS BRD reports two ongoing projects asso-
ciated with recovery plans: evaluation of environmental
contaminants in Aplomado falcons and ocelots: 2.
TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED ON
THE BASIS OF RECOVERY PLANS AND AGREEMENTS: 19
NATURAL RESOU.RCES
111
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
OTHER NOTABLE ACTIVITIES
; AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Members ofthe Natural Resources Workgroup worked with
members of the Water "Workgroup and the International
Boundary and Water Commission to plan the Rio Grande
Symposium, a government-to-government meeting to discuss
the low-water-flow-related stress on the Rio Grande-Rfo
Bravo riparian ecosystem between Fort Quitman and Amis-
tad Reservoir. The symposium was held on June 19, 2000
in Ciudad Juarez. The discussion focused on the riparian
ecosystem of the adjacent protected areas of Big Bend Nation-
al Park, Moderns del Carmen and Can6n de Santa Elena flora
and fauna protected areas, and Big Bend Ranch State Park.
Information and data on the current state of the hydrolog-
ic system, aquatic biological communities, water use, and
water management practices were presented by those who
have conducted studies on this reach of the river. Con-
straints and opportunities for change were discussed in an
attempt to reach agreement about how to better manage
water resources to improve conditions for habitat and wildlife.
FUTURE
PERSPECTIVES
Cross-border cooperation on natural resources management
issues is conducted under several fora, including Border XXI;
the DOI-SEMARNAP letter of intent (LOI); and the Wild-
land Fire Protection Agreement among SEMARNAP, DOI,
and USDA. The increasing number of government agen-
cies, nongovernmental organizations, and tribal governments
in the United States that are involved in cross-border natu-
ral resources cooperation is a strong indication that the level
of concern and awareness about these issues is growing.
The DOI-SEMARNAP LOI on adjacent protected areas
has proved to be a valuable mechanism for cooperation ••
because it has focused binational efforts on regional priori-
ties identified for their high density of species and biodi-
versity. The first two pilots in the western Sonoran Desert
and the Chihuahuan Desert were not the beginning of this ;
type of cross-border collaboration, but the LOI has served
to enhance the collaboration and partnerships. i
In the western Sonoran Desert, regional leadership by
both government and nongovernmental organizations has
been key to carrying out a number of real, on-the-ground
projects. The process has been driven by the local land man-
agers, with strong participation by others outside the feder-
al government. Nongovernmental organizations like The
Nature Conservancy, the Sonoran Institute, and the Arizona-
Sonora Desert Museum have been instrumental in provid- :
ing some of the theoretical frameworks and analytical process-
es for defining overarching themes and issues. This level of
collaboration, though still in a formative stage, will only
grow stronger with time.
Cross-border collaboration is also improving in the Big
Bend pilot region of the Chihuahuan Desert, where the staff
of natural protected areas are working on some important
on-the-ground projects. The next step for this region will
be to agree on common priorities and mutual interests that
can serve as overarching themes. Fire management and exot-,
ic and endangered species will be likely themes for further;
development.
The Natural Resources Workgroup looks forward to this
level of cooperation expanding to other biodiversity hot spots
on the border, such as the upper San Pedro River basin.
NATURAL RESOURCES
112
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
OVERVIEW OP THE PRINCIPAL
r ISSUES AND THEMES
^ -* ~ ~ ~ J- ^ „ ^™ ^^ _ ^ *l^^_^^ _W~ ^w J&
The mission of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup is to
demonstrate and promote pollution prevention
benefits to protect the environment and human
health and encourage sustainable development in
border communities. Investing resources to reduce
pollution and prevent it from being generated is a
more sustainable method of improving the envi-
ronment and avoiding health problems than invest-
ing resources in regulation, treatment, disposal, and
storage of waste. An overarching function of the
Pollution Prevention Workgroup is to coordinate
efforts to define and implement pollution preven-
tion projects in the border area and to support the
efforts of other Border XXI workgroups to imple-
ment and promote pollution prevention practices.
Objectives
OF THE POLLUTION
PREVENTION WORKGROUP
AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS *
To achieve the mission of protecting the environ-
ment through pollution prevention, the workgroup
has focused its efforts on capacity building, coor-
dinating similar pollution prevention
activities, and building partnerships along
the border. Input from the industrial sec-
tor, academic institutions, and border
communities has helped the workgroup
decide where to focus pollution preven-
tion efforts and has provided a means for
obtaining new ideas about how to effec-
tively communicate the benefits of pol-
lution prevention practices. Partnerships with these various
entities have made possible the success of projects and ini-
tiatives such as the development of bilingual manuals, con-
ferences and video conferences, and case studies based on
the results of site assessment visits. Partnerships have also
made possible the provision of technical assistance to the
maquiladom industry in the form of workshops and semi-
The objectives defined by the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup in the 1996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program:
Framework Document (Framework Document) are listed in
Table 11-1.
•; Increase technical exchange at ail levels of govern-
ment to enhance assistance and outreach to industry.
• Increase technical assistance and outreach to feder-
al, state, and municipal authorities and the general pub-
lic.
• Increase cooperation and coordination with other-
Border XXI workgroups and other entities involved in
promoting pollution prevention.
The objectives .listed above may have been 'par
these objectives, please refer to that.report.
The objectives described in this section may be referred to by
number. The numbers are intended for ease of reference only
and do not imply order of importance.
Table 11-1
Progress Toward Goals
Table 11-2 on the following page lists initiatives
as they pertain to each of the objectives. The
objectives are identified as they are addressed in
each of the geographical areas of the U.S.-Mexico
border, as well as border wide.
Increase Technical Exchange, Outreach to
Industry, and Cooperation with Other Entities
Involved in the Promotion of Pollution
Prevention
• Arizona-Sonora Region — Pollution
prevention efforts in the Arizona-Sonora
region have focused on objectives 1 and 3
and initiatives C, D, and F. The Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality's
(ADEQ) Arizona-Mexico International
Green Organization (AMIGO) Program,
funded through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) hi partnership with Mexico, is a voluntary and
nonregulatory partnership between government and indus-
try in the Arizona-Sonora border region. The program
brings companies together to share technologies that
reduce waste and pollution and increase profits, worker
safety, and environmental health. Through facility tours,
workshops, and conferences, participants benefit from net-
working opportunities, technology, and information
exchanges focused on promoting pollution prevention and
improving waste management practices.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ARIZONA MEXICO INTERNATIONAL
LAMK3OJ
GREEN ORGANIZATION
As a result of outreach activities in the area, indus-
try groups in Arizona and the maquiladora. industry in
Nogales, Sonora have established a membership base for
technology exchange and assistance. Two workshops have
been held for environmen-
tal health and safety man-
agers on the fundamental
principles of pollution pre-
vention. The workshops
featured a site visit to a
manufacturing facility in
Tucson to provide technical transfer opportunities to
workshop participants. Other binational facility site vis-
its have provided networking and technical transfer
opportunities for similar industries.
A binational pollution prevention conference consist-
ing of presentations by Arizona industries, including Allied
Signal, Inc; International Business Machines Corporation
(IBM); Intel Corporation; and Motorola, Inc., was held
on May 14, 1998, in Nogales, Sonora. Both U.S. and
Mexican government officials discussed hazardous waste
and other applicable regulations governing industries in
the border region. A second conference was held during
Pollution Prevention Week in September 1999 in Tucson,
Arizona. Presentations focused on case
studies conducted by companies from
Arizona and Sonora on aspects of pol-
lution prevention, such as planning for
projects, gaining economic benefits, and
incorporating Design for the Environ-
ment principles in the manufacturing
process.
The efforts of these companies led
to the establishment of an award pro-
gram to recognize AMIGO partners who
demonstrate leadership in reducing the
amount and toxicity of hazardous wastes
and the use of toxic substances in the
Arizona-Sonora border region. Awards
are given in two categories: (1) process
improvements and (2) pollution pre-
vention promotion. The awards are pre-
sented by the governors of Sonora and
Arizona during the Fall Plenary Session of the Arizona-
Mexico Commission and its sister organization, the
Comisi6n Sonora-Arizona (Sonora-Arizona Commission). ;
These organizations have been in existence for 40 years
and are a branch of the governor's office in each respec-
tive state.
The awards for excellence in process improvement went
to SUMEX in 1998 and to General Instruments Corpo-
ration in 1999. The recipients of the award for excellence
in pollution prevention promotion were Circuitos Mexicanos
in 1998 and SUMEX in 1999.
A special recognition was presented to the Associa-
tion of Professionals in Safety, Health and the Environ-
ment, in appreciation for its support and partnership in
promoting the goals of pollution prevention and the
efforts of the AMIGO Program.
Note: Projects for the Arizona-Sonora area are coor-
dinated with the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup
and incorporate pollution prevention concepts. Table
11-3 on the following page presents highlights of the
activities conducted under the AMIGO Program. The
section of this report that discusses the activities of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup provides more
information about related projects.
Overview of the Strategy [ | :
i Initiative Objective 1 jl Objective 2 Objective 3 j
.^— — — _— —
A. Develop bilingual pollution
prevention manuals for priority
industrial sectors.
B. Expand pollution prevention
technical assistance to small
business operations.
C. Expand pollution prevention
assistance to maquiladoras.
D. Develop an initiative on
recycling and solid waste
handling activities.
E. Establish a pollution prevention
office in SEMARNAP.
F. Continue technical support in
recycling and pollution prevention in
cooperation with Mexican state
governmental agencies.
'••••,-'•:
-•:, V ' ' '
.>'".;•' ,
;. •"•/;.-..
•".•'•'.••,-••
•:-•""•'
•••'. •* '" • "
• •'•'.'
-•*.,,
,''• •:".-'.-
* •'..
*.. ,
I • Initiative addresses this objective " " r] :•. :- ' (•'..:,' "'•!•:•'] .,t ',,..',' .I'i " H !•• l.:..j
. ! I - - ' ' '*>•••<• •••'•"'•• •'-'""" •"•••• • ' •-•• '"'• ' "••••'•' '•'••'t-.J-
Table 11-2
POLLUTION PREVENTION
114
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
SUM EX: Recycling and
remanufacturing facility
for copier and printer
cartridges in Nogales,
Sonera for the XEROX
Corporation
Circuitos Mexicanos:
Automotive harness man-
ufacturing company in
Nogales, Sonora for the
Chrysler Corporation
General Instruments
Corporation:
Maquiladora in Nogales,
Sonora for the General
Instruments Corporation
~ AMIGO Highlights
Environmental Savings
January-October 1998:2,828,204 pounds of recy-
cled materials ,'•-••
January-September 1999: 3,498,533 pounds of
recycled materials . . •', V-
June-September 1999: 200,000 pounds of toner
recovered after an initial investment of $30,000
for toner recycling equipment ..."•/. :'•'
Projected for 2000: One million pounds of toner
to be recuperated . _ . -
Cost Savings
January 1997: Cardboard barrel recycling program
initiated v . . ! '.';' ',,"".' ,"-•• '. '. '• •
January-October 1997: Recycled 44,000 card-
board barrels
1999: Through pollution prevention process improve-
ments, generation of lead solder dross reduced
by 50 percent from the previous year, despite a
rise in production ' '
1999:22Savings of 5,800 gallons of water through
water conservation methods
Not available
Not available
Sayings'of $12,000 from
June-September 1999 :
Projected savings
2000 is $60,000
for
Estimated annual savings
$264,000 -..::;-.:•
Through various recycling
and product substitution
efforts, $102,000 saved in
a period of eight months
Not available
Table 11-3
• California-Baja California Area — Pollution preven-
tion efforts in the California-Baja California area have
focused on objectives 1 and 3 and initiatives C, D, and
F. The primary initiatives of the California Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), led by the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Technology Department, has
been to increase communication and technical exchange
of information through coordination, partnership meet-
ings, and workshops. With funding from EPA, DTSC
has worked to forge partnerships with the state of Baja
California and area academic institutions to increase tech-
nology exchange and provide outreach to the communi-
ty. Together with its partners, DTSC has emphasized the
need to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated
along the border through pollution prevention techniques.
Table 11-4 lists workshops focused on the electronics,
metal finishing, and wood finishing processes that have
been presented to maquiladoras and other industries in the
California-Baja California area. In partnership with local
border universities, DTSC also presented workshops on
reducing generation of volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Partnerships continue to be fostered among DTSC,
the Procuraduria Federal de Protection alAmbiente (PRO-
FEPA, or Mexico's Federal Attorney General for Environ-
mental Protection), local industry, academic institutions,
Presentation of 1998 AMIGO Program
Awards by Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull
and Sonora Governor Armando Lopez Nogales
and municipalities to promote the concepts
of pollution prevention and sustainability
through a variety of activities. As a result
of meetings and other events, more than 250
people in the California-Baja California bor-
der area have been trained in methods of
reducing generation of air pollutants and haz-
ardous waste. Through other collaborative efforts, the Pol-
lution Prevention Workgroup will work to develop meth-
ods of gathering data to identify trends in quantities of
wastes coming from maquiladoras into California. The
workgroup will also strive to develop binational strategies
to more effectively coordinate with the maquiladora indus-
try in the California-Baja California area.
Note: Projects for the California-Baja California area
are coordinated with the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Workgroup and incorporate pollution prevention con-
cepts. The section of this report that describes the
activities of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup
provides more information about related projects.
• New Mexico-Chihuahua Area - Pollution preven-
tion efforts in the New Mexico-Chihuahua area have
focused on fulfilling objectives 1 and 3. New Mexico
1 Pollution Prevention Workshops
Pollution prevention workshop
for maquiladoras: Focus on
electronics industry
Pollution prevention workshop
for maquiladoras: Focus on
wood finishing and metal finishing
Pollution prevention workshop:
Focus on reducing VOC
generation
May 1997
May 1998
March 1997
May 1999
June 1999:
San Diego, California
Tijuana, Baja California
Tijuana, Baja California
Mexicali, Baja California
Tijuana, Baja California
Table 11-4
POLLUTION PREVENTION
115
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
State University (NMSU), the Institute Tecnoldgico y de
Estiidios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM, or Monterrey
Institute of Technology and Advanced Studies) and EPA
Region 6 have partnered to address environmental leg-
islation and regulation and to incorporate business mod-
els that include natural resource conservation, as well as
minimization of toxic output to the environment. Two
workshops were held at ITESM for maquiladora man-
agers from Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, tided Environ-
mental Management and Natural Resource Economics and
Environmental Regulation for the Maquiladora Industry.
Both sessions emphasized methods of reducing costs by
minimizing pollution, adopting more environmentally
sustainable business practices, and avoiding costs associ-
ated with pollution cleanups and regulatory violations.
Participants indicated their desire to receive additional
instruction on each of the topics. One company cred-
ited the seminars with helping it institute an aluminum
recycling program. The program helped the company
reduce waste and save a significant amount of money.
This project produced a video and bilingual workbooks
of the seminars for future reference, as well as a bilin-
gual CD ROM of the workshop materials. For addi-
tional information, contact the NMSU management
department at (505) 646-1434.
• Texas-Chihuahua-Coahuila-Nuevo Le6n-Tamauli-
pas Area — Pollution prevention efforts in this area
focused on objectives 1 and 3 and initiatives B and C.
In collaboration with Mexico's Institute Nacional de
Ecokgia (INE, or National Institute of Ecology), PRO-
FEPA, local governments, industry, and academic part-
ners, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Com-
mission (TNRCC), through funding from EPA, has
implemented technical assistance programs, site visits,
and capacity-building programs along the Texas-Mexico
border. In conjunction with PROFEPA's voluntary audit-
ing program, 21 on-site technical assistance visits to
maquiladoras have been completed. Reports from the
participating maquiladoras indicated annual reductions
of 9,600 tons of hazardous waste, 88,600 pounds of
VOCs, and 57,400 tons of non-hazardous waste. In
addition, 37 million gallons of water and 77 million
kilowatt hours of electrical energy were conserved. The
maquiladoras have attributed annual savings of almost
$10.1 million to pollution prevention and energy con- ;
servation methods.
Active partnerships have been cultivated through
TNRCC to promote capacity building along the Texas-
Mexico border. Through an agreement between the
municipal government of Ciudad Juarez, the state gov-
ernment of Chihuahua, the Universidad Autdnoma de
Ciudad Judrez (Autonomous University of Ciudad
Juirez), INE, and TNRCC, a case study was developed
to include university staff as part of the site assistance
visit team and to develop a seminar for the Permanent
Pollution Prevention Program. The case study resulted
in engineering changes diat streamlined production and
reduced waste through pollution prevention techniques.
Because of the success of the case study, a permanent
position was established in the university's Centra para
Estudios de Media Ambiente (CEMA, or Center for Envi-
ronmental Studies) to address pollution prevention con-
cerns, together with area industry.
In partnership with the El Paso, Texas Independent'.
School District Technical Center and Texas State Tech-
nical College (Harlingen), TNRCC's Small Business
Assistance Program provided training on paint-spraying,
techniques and the use of the Spray Techniques Analy-
sis and Research (STAR) Training Program. The tech-
niques demonstrated in the training help to reduce over-
spray, coating costs, and VOC emissions and minimize;
the amount of hazardous waste that is generated. The |
overall benefit is the increase in the energy efficiency rat-
ing of the sprayer. As a result, material costs were reduced
by as much as 24 percent, and VOCs were reduced by
as much as 23 percent (or 23 pounds). In this study,
a savings of as much as 57 percent in transfer efficien-
cy was achieved.
In addition, TNRCC has completed 40 pollution
prevention site assistance visits to a variety of small busi-
nesses along the Texas border. Compliance assistance for
regulatory and enforcement problems, as well as pollu—
tion prevention solutions to save money and avoid com-
pliance problems, was provided.
More detailed information about various aspects of
this program is available on the TNRCC web site at
www. tnrcc.state. tx. uslexeclopprlborderlborder. html.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
116
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
. Increase Technical Assistance and Outreach to Federal,
State, and Municipal Authorities and the General
Public
Efforts in this area have focused on initiatives D and F and
objective 2. State-to-state partnerships have been formed
between Texas and the neighboring Mexican states to devel-
op programs modeled on the Texas Clean Cities Program,
which encourages cities to strive for environmental excel-
lence (see www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/oppr/cc2000). Highlights
include state-to-state strategic environmental plans with the
state of Tamaulipas to identify common priorities and to
chart future actions. In addition, the state of Tamaulipas
has established an agreement with TNRCC, the Universidad
Aut6noma de Tamaulipas (Autonomous University of Tamauli-
pas) {Unidad Rhode in Reynosa, Tamaulipas), and the Sec-
retaria de Media Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca
(SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Natural
Resources, and Fisheries) delegation in Tamaulipas to incor-
porate pollution prevention studies into the curriculum on
a permanent basis. In the state of Chihuahua, TNRCC has
also established partnerships with Ciudad Juarez and the local
university.
To further promote recycling, TNRCC has partnered
widi border universities and local municipalities to provide
recycling and municipal solid waste management training to
local municipal solid waste managers. To foster partnerships
in the effort to cultivate international trade linkages in the
recycling industry, TNRCC also joined Texas companies in
participating in die Mexican National Recycling Association
Conference. More than 1,500 participants attended die con-
ference, including equipment manufacturers, collectors, and
processors, as well as representatives of trade associations and
Texas firms. Recyclers networked widi corporations in Mex-
ico to establish new markets for recyclable materials and to
explore new opportunities.
During the Texas Recycling Summit, more than 40 rep-
resentatives of some of die largest recyclers in Nuevo Le6n
attended the Texas-Nuevo Le6n Invitational Luncheon to
encourage the development of international recycling mar-
kets and information networks. The luncheon was die cul-
minating event of the Nuevo Leon Recycling Development
Roundtable held in 1998 in Laredo, Texas.
As outreach to the local community, TNRCC initiated
a pilot training for colonias on basic recycling techniques.
Colonia residents have requested more assistance in devel-
oping community recycling programs.
ADEQ has integrated technical assistance binationally
through collaboration with Sonora and Sonoran industries.
The efforts have been integrated into die AMIGO program.
The Arizona-Sonora section of this chapter provides more
specific information.
DTSC also has initiated outreach to other government
authorities through the Waste Wi$e Program. The Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste "Workgroup chapter provides more
information about that program.
Increase Cooperation with Other Border XXI Workgroups
and Other Entities Involved in Promoting Pollution
Prevention Border Wide
This section addresses all tihree objectives and describes a
border-wide collaborative effort of the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup,
and the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Work-
group.
• Pollution Prevention Office in the Secretaria de
Media Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca — In
October 1995, an office of pollution prevention was cre-
ated as a subdirectorate in INE. The office participat-
ed in the development of the national executive proposal
Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes
(RETC, or Pollution Release and Transfer Register),
which was published in March 1997. On April 9, 1998,
the multimedia format of the Cedula de Operacidn Anual
(Report of Annual Operations), the instrument that will
provide the data to be used in the RETC, was estab-
lished. The implementation of RETC is incomplete
because of pending modifications in the regulations that
govern hazardous wastes, the water discharge reports, and
the authorization of the list of substances that are to be
reported.
• Bilingual Pollution Prevention Manuals and Con-
ferences - The Pollution Prevention Workgroup devel-
oped a series of bilingual manuals to promote pollution
prevention in specific industries that are heavily repre-
sented in the border region. The workgroup has dis-
tributed more than 200 of the manuals to relevant com-
panies and organizations on both sides of the border.
Upon completion of the manuals, the workgroup organ-
POLLUTION PREVENTION
117
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ized bilingual conferences for the specific industry- sec-
tor to promote the manuals (Table 11-5).
Bilingual Location Date
Conference 1
Pollution Prevention in the
Textile Industry
Pollution Prevention In the Metal and
Wood Finishing Industry
Pollution Prevention Workshop:
Focus on Metal Finishing and Wood
Finishing Industries
Pollution Prevention in the
Motal Finishing Industry
Pollution Prevention In the
Electronics Industry
Pollution Prevention Workshop: Focus
on Electronics Industry
Brownsville, Texas
El Paso, Texas
Ei Paso, Texas
Ciudad Juarez,
Chihuahua
Laredo, Texas
El Paso, Texas
Laredo, Texas
Tijuana,
Baja California
San Diego,
California
Summer 1998
Summer 1998
Summer 1995
Summer 1994
Summer 1996
Summer 1996
Spring 1997
Spring 1997
Table 11-5
• Training Video —To promote pollution prevention as
a solution to compliance problems, the Pollution Preven-
tion Workgroup worked with the Cooperative Enforce-
ment and Compliance Workgroup to produce a bilingual
video tided Environmental Auditing and Pollution Preven-
tion: Strategies far Compliance in the Maquiladora Indus-
try. The video outlines pollution prevention-based com-
pliance strategies for the maquiladora industry and explains
the benefits of Mexico's environmental audit program.
TNRCC and ADEQ. assisted in the distribution of the
video and, to date, have distributed more than 400 copies.
• Partnerships — The workgroup continues to partner
with other workgroups and agencies to promote pollu-
tion prevention through such -efforts as the AMIGO
and Clean Texas programs and California-Baja Califor-
nia workshops. Other partnerships have included that
of EPA, INE, PROFEPA, and TNRCC, in collabora-
tion with the U.S. Agency for International Develop-
ment (USAID), to work in energy conservation and
pollution prevention with the maquiladoras in the
Reynosa, Tamaulipas; Matamoros, Tamaulipas; and
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas areas. Those efforts culmi-
nated in a conference that showcased the successes
achieved by the maquiladoras.
In partnership with TNRCC, EPA, SEMARNAP, and
U.S. and Mexican industry, the University of Texas (UT)-
Pan-America and UT-Brownsville developed a pollution
prevention engineering curriculum. The curriculum also
considers the legal and regulatory environmental require-
ments of Mexico, the United States, and Canada.
• U.S.-Mexico Pollution Prevention Roundtable
for Sustainable Solutions - U.S.-Mexico Pollution Pre-
vention roundtables were initiated in June 1998 in ;
Brownsville, Texas and continued in February 1999 in
Reynosa and November 1999 in El Paso as opportuni-
ties to explore partnerships between maquiladoras and
research institutions in one setting. The roundtable meet-
ing held in November 1999 in El Paso included pre- -
sentations that illustrated the potential partnerships and
the market available for the promotion of pollution pre-
vention and energy efficiency as a profitable and sus- ,
tainable methodology for industries, academic institu-
tions, and the border community. Roundtable mem-
bers, including the Fundaddn de Mexico-Estados Unidos
para la Ciencia (FUMEC, or Mexico-United States Foun-
dation for Science), Mexico's Consejo Nacionalde la Indus- ,
tria Maquiladora (AMAC, or National Association of.
Maquiladoras} industry representatives, border academic
institutions, INE, PROFEPA, EPA, and TNRCC, host-
ed the roundtable. Members made a commitment to
examine the concerns and needs of the maquiladora
industry and the capabilities of local academic institu-
tions to address those needs as a basis for the establish-
ment of sustainable cooperative programs. Next steps
have been contemplated and will be reported in future
publications. The project was sponsored by EPA through
a grant to TNRCC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
Types of Environmental Indicators
D
D
PRESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
POLLUTION PREVENTION
118
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
In 1997, the Pollution Prevention Workgroup drafted an ambi-
tious set of environmental indicators as a means of measur-
ing the workgroups progress in accomplishing its pollution
prevention goals. However, due to the lack of a standardized
data collection system and the voluntary nature of the pollu-
tion prevention initiatives, data are limited. The information
is neither systematically organized nor comparable because
maquiladoras use different pollution prevention methodolo-
gies. As a result, the indicators have relied heavily on vol-
untary data from participating maquiladoras and workshops.
The workshops were developed to build capacity at all levels
of government, universities, industry, and the community.
The indicators will be revisited and revised as necessary
to attempt to track trends in the effectiveness of pollution
prevention and energy efficiency methodologies as they are
applicable to site-specific industries and workshops. Present-
ed below are the Pollution Prevention Workgroup indicators,
which include data collected under the Border XXI initiatives.
Note: In addition to the reductions listed below, the
participating maquiladoras credited annual savings of $10.1
million by implementing sustainable pollution prevention,
energy efficiency, and water conservation methods.
§>UNT OF WASTE GENERATED IN THE BORDER AREA IN SPECIFIC
TORS OR INDUSTRIES AFTER IMPLEMENTING POLLUTION
VENTION METHODS, NORMALIZED FOR PRODUCTION
Reduction in the amount of waste generated (normalized
for production)
• Reports from participating maquiladoras indicate aver-
age annual reductions of 9,600 tons of hazardous waste,
88,600 pounds of VOCs, and 57,400 tons of non-haz-
ardous waste produced. These numbers are derived from
specific site visits and through voluntary reports. Reports
may be obtained through TNRCC.
• Other site-specific savings are included in the Ari-
zona-Sonora section. Due to the design of the program,
annual figures were not averaged.
Reduction in the amount of water consumption
normalized for production
• Reports from participating maquiladoras indicate aver-
age annual reductions of 37 million gallons of water
consumed. That figure is derived from specific site vis-
its and through voluntary reports. Reports may be
obtained through TNRCC.
• Other site-specific savings are included in the Ari-
zona-Sonora section. Due to the design of the program,
annual figures were not averaged.
Reduction in the amount of energy consumption
normalized for production
• Reports from participating maquiladoras indicate aver-
age annual reductions of 77 million kilowatt hours of
electrical energy consumed. The numbers above are
derived from specific site visits and through voluntary
reports. Reports may be obtained through TNRCC.
Reduction in air VOCs, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and
paniculate matter (PM) emissions in the El Paso-Ciudad
Juarez-Sunland Park, Texas area
• Current data are not available.
AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION FROM INDUSTRY, ALL LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND COMMUNITIES IN WORKSHOPS
PROMOTING POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNIQUES AND
RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Technical exchange to enhance outreach to industry
• Bilingual pollution prevention manuals were devel-
oped for specific industries, as follows:
- Pollution Prevention in the Wood Finishing Industry
- Pollution Prevention in the Electronics Industry
- Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry
- Pollution Prevention in the Metal Finishing Industry
• More than 15 seminars have been presented to vari-
ous industrial sectors and maquiladoras along the U.S.-
Mexico border.
• 21 on-site technical assistance visits to maquiladoras
have been conducted along the U.S.-Mexico border area.
• 40 pollution prevention site assistance visits to a vari-
ety of small businesses along the Texas border area have
been conducted.
• The AMIGO program successfully established an
avenue for technical assistance between similar industries
and maquiladora sectors and a recognition program sup-
ported by the governors of Sonora and Arizona.
• Workshops have been held to promote recycling and
waste minimization among sister cities along the U.S.-
Mexico border.
• A bilingual training video tided Environmental Audit-
ing and Pollution Prevention: Strategies for Compliance in
POLLUTION PREVENTION
119
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
the Maquiladora Industry has been developed in coordi-
nation with the Cooperative Enforcement and Compli-
ance Workgroup to promote pollution prevention as a
solution to compliance problems.
Technical assistance and outreach to federal, state, and
municipal authorities and the general public
• A pollution prevention office has been established in
SEMARNAP.
• State-to-state partnerships have been established to
promote pollution prevention in the border states.
• The workgroup members continue to foster partner-
ships with other workgroups, agencies, academia, and
industry to promote pollution prevention through pro-
grams such as the AMIGO program, Clean Texas, and
Industria Limpia (Clean Industry) and through work-
shops and seminars along the border.
• Pollution prevention has been instituted in the cur-
riculum of two Mexican border universities.
• DTSC has established partnerships with local indus-
try, academic institutions, and municipalities to present
conferences promoting the reduction of VOCs and haz-
ardous waste.
Number of pollution prevention practices that have been
implemented after a site assessment visit, workshop, or
training session
• Reports from participating maquiladoras indicate diat,
on average, diree pollution prevention practices are imple-
mented after a site assistance visit. This number is derived
from specific visits and through voluntary reports.
Amount of non-toxic chemicals or materials substituted
for toxic chemicals or materials
• No data are available.
f"
FUTURE
PERSPECTIVES
The activities of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup have
gone through a maturation process. A base structure of
workshops, manuals, and successful case studies has been
established, permitting the workgroup to reach a significant
number of industry representatives, maquiladora associations,
local and state governments, and academic institutions. On
the odier hand, the interdisciplinary nature of the activities
is now more evident, as is reflected in the reduction of emis-
sions and wastes in the various media areas. Of particular
relevance is the compatibility of objectives between the tasks ;
of the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup ;
and those of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup. This ,
compatibility is reflected in the successful inclusion of pol-
lution prevention objectives in the action plans derived from I
the voluntary auditing program.
Nevertheless, during 1998, public discussion indicated a
need to revisit the strategies of the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup. In spite of successful case studies, pollution
prevention has not become a common practice in demand
by industry at large. As a result, the workgroup has made ,
a commitment to work toward developing additional strate- •
gies to promote pollution prevention border-wide. ,
The purpose of this effort is to create conditions in
which services will be more accessible to industry and odier
markets, especially since pollution prevention activities are
economically beneficial, as well as environmentally sound.
Industry representatives, consultants, and academic institu-
tions are essential partners in creating a sustainable pollu-
tion prevention market. Future areas for developing pollu- ;
tion prevention projects include: (1) implementing pollution I
prevention methods in other areas, such as new international >
wastewater treatment plants, and (2) continuing to work with
local industry, academic institutions, and government to
develop pollution prevention roundtables.
Proposed goals for the next five-year period include:
• As a result of the government-industry partnership
program, at least 10 percent of the maquiladora indus-
try in the border area will have participated in pollution '
prevention and waste minimization programs.
• During this period, the legal portion of the RETC
will be completed.
• The workgroup will continue to promote pollution
prevention through presentation of workshops, develop-
ment of manuals, and completion of site assistance visits.
• The workgroup will facilitate U.S.-Mexico pollution '
prevention roundtables to foster sustainable partnerships
between academic institutions and industry.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
120
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
OVERVIEW OF THE PRINGIlPAt
THEMES
More than 10 million people live in 14 sister cities in the
border region. Unreliable potable water supplies
and the discharge of untreated wastewater are per-
sistent environmental and public health problems.
When the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program began
in 1996, only 88 percent of border households in
Mexico had potable water service; 69 percent were
connected to sewers; and 34 percent were on sewer
systems that were connected to wastewater treat-
ment facilities. In most of those cities, the sewer
systems were beyond their operating design capac-
ity and projected life spans. Although more bor-
der cities in the United States had infrastructure
in place, many of those systems were in need of
rehabilitation and upgrading to meet more strin-
gent water quality requirements. In addition, in
Texas and New Mexico, unincorporated settle-
ments not served by public utilities, known as colo-
nias, were without potable water, sewers, and
wastewater treatment systems.
The signing of the 1944 International Bound-
ary and Water Treaty by the United States and
Mexico underscored the need to work
binationally to improve border environ-
mental and public health conditions. The
La Paz Agreement confirmed that bina-
tional commitment. Since that time,
many binational projects have been
undertaken. Some projects addressed the
allocation of river resources between the
two nations and border states. Other
projects addressed water quality in relation to such indica-
tors as pesticides, salinity, and transportation of sediments.
Bilateral agreements have also promoted the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities.
Many federal, state, and local institutions and agencies
have participated in and continue to work on these bor-
der area efforts. Specifically, the Mexican and U.S. sec-
tions of the International Boundary and Water Commis-
sion (IBWC), Mexico's Common National del Agua (CNA,
or National Water Commission), and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) have provided funding and
technical assistance for project planning and construction
of infrastructure. A side agreement to the North
American F,ree Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created
two binational institutions, the Border Environ-
ment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the
North American Development Bank (NADB).
Those institutions focus specifically on assisting
communities in developing environmental infra-
structure projects, making the process by which
projects are planned and implemented more trans-
parent and responsive to local concerns. The
BECC supports efforts to evaluate, plan, and
implement water, wastewater, and solid waste
projects; the NADB helps project sponsors devel-
op the appropriate financial package. (Chapter
1 provides further details about the binational
water and wastewater agreements and institu-
tions.)
Under the structure of the Border XXI Water
Workgroup, representatives of both governments
review and approve policies that define criteria for
environmental projects in the border region. The
workgroups goal is to put in place ade-
quate infrastructure, or replace inadequate
infrastructure, to improve public health
and environmental conditions. To
demonstrate the effectiveness of such proj-
ects, the workgroup recognizes the need
to develop an understanding of the cur-
rent condition of the water resources in
the region. Therefore, from the outset,
the objectives of the Border XXI Water Workgroup have
included watershed evaluation and monitoring, as well as
infrastructure planning and other infrastructure-related
processes.
It is not yet possible to direcdy relate the effects of proj-
ects to improvements in water quality, since most projects are
in the planning or construction stage. In anticipation of the
need to establish that relationship, studies to characterize the
quality of water bodies are already in place in the border region.
The Agreement Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment in the Border Area was signed in La Paz, Ba]a California Sur, Mexico on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on February 16, 1984.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The effort to monitor water quality will help to determine
whether the projects achieve the water quality objectives.
"Work in the border region is complicated by two fac-
tors: the many agencies and institutions participating in the
efforts have overlapping functions, and the differences in rel-
evant national, state, and local legislation and legislative
processes may be difficult to reconcile. Increased bination-
al communication, cooperation, and coordination have been
critical to the success of the workgroup.
OBJECTIVES OF THE . ' ;
WATER WORKGROUP
AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
The Water Workgroup objectives set forth in Table 12-1
were identified in the 1996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXIProgram:
Framework Document (Framework Document):
Objectives
• Develop, rehabilitate, or expand drinking water, wastewater col-
lection, and wastewater treatment infrastructure.
• Establish binational guidelines for developing pretreatment pro-
grams related to pollution prevention.
• Establish binational priorities related to watershed planning and
management, and develop a long-term joint program, through the
EPA, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), IBWC, CNA, and Sec-
rafarta da Medlo Amblente Recursos Naturales, y Pesca (SEMAR-
NAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fish-
eries), in cooperation with state and local authorities, to systemat-
ically map and characterize key transboundary surface and ground-
water basins.
• Continue programs to monitor the quality of surface and ground-
waters, Including salinity and sediment transport, to characterize and
determine the quality of water resources.
• Develop personnel training programs related to water
management issues.
• Educate the public about water and related public health issues,
promoting its efficient and rational use, along with conservation and
recycling.
• Provide opportunities for public participation in decision mak-
ing related to water Infrastructure, disclosing all aspects of the
projects, including the financial implications. Encour-age cross-
border communication and exchange of informa-tion at the fed-
eral, state, and local government levels.
Tho Objectives listed above may have been paraphrased from the Framework
Document, For a more detailed description of the objectives, please refer to
that report, ! :
The objectives described^ in this section may be referred to by number. Thp
numbors are intended for ease of reference only and do not imply order of
impedance.
Table 12-1
Develop, Rehabilitate, or Expand Drinking Water,
Wastewater Collection, and Wastewater Treatment
Infrastructure
Since 1996, considerable progress has been made in the plan-
ning, design, construction, and funding of wastewater and
water treatment plants in die border region under the Bor-
der XXI Program. Binational federal and state governments
in the border region have coordinated their efforts and fund- •
ing authorities to construct, rehabilitate, or expand existing
water and wastewater treatment and collection systems. The
Secretaria de Media Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca
(SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Natural ;
Resources, and Fisheries) CNA, EPA, IBWC, die BECC, and ,
die NADB coordinate their activities through the Mexico- <
United States Border Infrastructure Coordination Commit- '
tee. The committee has proposed, reviewed, and approved
policies for the development of water and sanitation infra-
structure projects in the region. Those efforts have helped
federal, state, and local managers make decisions to optimize
the use and management of die region's scarce resources.
• Project Planning - Border XXI Water Workgroup ,
projects have been developed through one of two mech- '
anisms. Under the authority of the 1944 water treaty
and the La Paz Agreement, funds have been appropriat- ;
ed for certain binational projects. Studies of water-relat- \
ed infrastructure needs were coordinated with and sup-
ported by CNA, EPA, and IBWC. The studies focused '.
on fundamental activities widiin the framework of Bor- !
der XXI, including strengthening the operating entities \
to improve dieir planning base, developing specific proj- j
ects, and monitoring the quality of the surface and \
groundwater within the border watersheds.
In 1994, after NAFTA was signed, both countries '
provided funding and support for the establishment and ;
operation of die BECC and the NADB; that effort ]
included defining project criteria, developing operational
procedures, and hiring technically experienced staff. The
institutions are now operational and have begun to play
an important role in developing projects.
In Mexico, sewer and sanitation planning studies have
been developed for die cities of Mexicali, Baja Califor-
nia; Nogales, Sonora; Ciudad Acufia and Piedras Negras,
Coahuila; and Reynosa, Tamaulipas, through treaty con-
WATER
122
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ditions defined in IBWC Minute 294, funded through
CNA and EPA. For each of those communities, short-
and long-term priority actions leading to the overall inte-
gration of sewer and sanitation systems have been iden-
tified and developed in project plans. Grant funding for
the projects (Mexicali, Nogales, Ciudad Acufia, Piedras
Negras, and Reynosa) through this mechanism totaled
$57 million.
Other projects completed under these conditions are
described below.
- The wastewater treatment plant in Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas began operation in March 1996.
- Construction of the first stage of the Tijuana, Baja
California-San Diego, California International "Waste-
water Treatment Plant (IWTP) was completed in April
1997. The South Bay Ocean Outfall (SBOO), which
carries the treated wastewater to an underwater outfall,
was completed in January 1998. Plant operation, includ-
ing discharge through die outfall, began in June 1998
and has reduced the number of dry-weather public health
alerts along the border beaches. The cost of the IWTP
and the SBOO was approximately $300 million.
- A "Quick Fix" program was completed in Mexicali
and Nogales, Sonora. Managed by the IBWC, the
program included the repair of some of the most
degraded areas of the sewer system. Collection system
failures, and subsequent treatment system bypasses, are
a chronic cause of water pollution. The program has
reduced system intrusions and raw sewage bypasses. In
Mexicali, changes in water quality in the Rfo Nuevo,
which consists of agricultural drainage and municipal
and industrial wastewater, were evaluated before and
after construction as part of the ongoing monitoring
program at the international boundary.
- Surveys and geographic information system (GIS)
mapping studies of wastewater collection systems have
been completed for the cities of Mexicali and Nogales,
Sonora. These studies provide the data by which
infrastructure needs are identified and project speci-
fications may be defined.
- Similar studies have been performed by CNA in
other border locations and are in progress in Mata-
moros and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas. Appendix 13
provides details about these activities.
• Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Project Development Assistance Program - The BECC
Project Development Assistance Program (PDAP) was
established to provide technical assistance to border com-
munities for the development of potable water, sewer,
and sanitation projects. To date, EPA has contributed
$20 million for water and wastewater technical assistance
to PDAP. Technical assistance for solid waste is fund-
ed through BECCs operating budget, to which Mexico
and the United States contribute equally. In Mexico,
plans have already been developed for several cities, and
studies are currently underway in several others. Table
12-2 lists cities and communities in both countries that
have received PDAP funds. Mexicali, Ciudad Acufia,
Piedras Negras, and Reynosa project plans have received
BECC certification. Once a project has been certified,
project sponsors may apply for funding from a variety
of sources, including Mexican federal, state, and local
governments; matching grants through the Border Envi-
ronment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) (see the following
section); and loans from the NADB.
Project Development Assistance Program
Activities in the United States
Brawley, Calexico, Heber, Vado/Def Cerro, Dona Ana County, San Pablo,
Salem/Ogaz, La Union, Chaparral, Berino, Chamberino, San Miguel, Donna,
El Paso, Terrell County, Presidio, Brownsville, Horizon City, Descanso, Palo
Verde, San Luis, Patagonia, Tombstone, Somerton, Bisbee, Wilcox, Yuma,
Douglas, Salton City, Presidio, Sweetwater, Fabens.iLqs Fresnps, Seefey,
Nogales, Blythe * "••"""
Project Development Assistance Program
Activities in Mexico
Palomas, Carbonfferos Region, Cinco Manantiales Region, Camargo, Nuevo
Progreso, Dfaz Ordaz, Valle Hermoso, Ensenada, Tijuana, Teoate, Mexicali,
San Luis Rfo Colorado, Agua Prieta, Cananea, Magdaleria de Kino, Santa
Ana, Imuris, Ojinaga, China, General Bravo, Miguel Aleman, Nueva Ciudad
Guerrero, Mier, Ahumada, Ascenoion, Ciudad Juarez, Valle de Juarez, Janos,
Manuel, Benavides, Coyame, Nuevas Casas Grandes, Ciudad Acufia,
Piedras Negras, El Sasabe, Magdalena, Altar, Reynosa! Los Ramones, Los
Aldama, Cerralvo, Agualegas, Matamoros, Nogales, Puerto Pefiasco, Val-
leciilOj Sabinas, Anahuac ' .' '
Table 12-2
• Border Environment Infrastructure Fund - EPA has
provided funding to the NADB to administer the BEIF.
The BEIF provides grant funding to communities for the
WATE R
123
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
design and construction of water and wastewater infra-
structure. The BEIF is used to support projects in two
ways: design assistance and construction assistance. The
funds are targeted to ease a community's adjustment to
higher user fees over time and to complete a financial
package, respectively. To receive consideration for BEIF
funds, projects must be certified by the BECC. Through
fiscal year 1999, EPA had provided $211 million for the
BEIF.
• North American Development Bank Institutional
Development Program - The NADB allocated $2.5
million from its operating budget for the Institutional
Development Program (IDP) to help water and sanita-
tion agencies achieve effective and efficient operation of
services. The goal is to create a solid financial base for
long-term operation and maintenance of existing and
projected infrastructure. Financial analyses have helped
to pinpoint deficiencies and have provided suggestions
about ways to achieve self-supporting budgets. These
efforts will extend the life of the infrastructure projects
by ensuring support for critical operation and mainte-
nance needs.
• Projects Certified by the Border Environment
Cooperation Commission - Since September 1995, the
BECC has certified 36 projects in the border region,
including three solid waste-related projects (Table 12-3
on the following page). The total estimated cost of the
36 projects is almost $900 million. As of May 2000, 6
projects has been completed and are operating, and 16
more are under construction. The 22 projects will serve
more than 5 million people.
- Mexicali: The integrated sanitation project for the
city of Mexicali was certified in 1997. The project
includes expansion and rehabilitation of the sewer sys-
tem and existing wastewater treatment plant (Mexicali
I) and construction of a pumping plant, pressure emit-
ter (force mam), and wastewater treatment plant (Mex-
icali II). Those facilities are expected to meet the city's
wastewater treatment needs to the year 2010. Once
it is fully operational, the project will significandy
increase the amount of treated domestic and indus-
trial wastewater, from 67 percent to 100 percent.
- Ciudad Juarez: The Ciudad Juarez Sanitation Pro-
ject was certified in September 1997. The north and
south wastewater treatment plants, now under construc-
tion, will provide advanced primary treatment, the process
by which sewage solids are separated from the wastewater.,
Both plants are designed to be upgraded to secondary
treatment in the future, thereby further improving the
quality of the treated water. Once the two plants have;
become operational, wastewater treatment for the city will
increase from 0 to 100 percent. Another component of
die project will increase die number of households con-
nected to the sewer system from 80 percent to 93 per-
cent. The project will benefit 1.2 million inhabitants at,
an estimated cost of $30 million. ,
- Tijuana: In June 1997, the BECC certified the sys-
tem of parallel works and the rehabilitation and expan-
sion of the Planta de Tratamiento (Treatment Plant) San
Antonio de Los Buenos in Tijuana. This project, now;
under construction, is expected to cost $19 million.,
When complete, the project will reduce the amount of
untreated discharges that drain toward San Diego and
decrease contaminant load to the region's coastal and
marine resources.
- Reynosa: The Integrated Sanitation Project for
Reynosa was certified in March 1998. The project,
expected to cost $83 million, will bring sewer and san-:
itation service to 100 percent of the population. The
principal components of the project are (1) rehabili-
tation of the existing wastewater treatment plant, (2)
construction of two new wastewater treatment plants,
(3) rehabilitation and expansion of the primary and
secondary sanitary sewer network, and (4) construc-
tion and rehabilitation of the. wastewater pump sta-
tions. Plans for future reuse'of treated wastewater for
irrigation should bring the added benefit of increased
agricultural productivity to the arid region.
For details about other projects, consult the BECC
web site at www.cocef.org and the NADB web site at
www.nadb.org.
• Indian Tribes Environmental Infrastructure Pro-
gram (United States) - Approximately 27 tribes have
sovereignty over lands within the border zone, and sev-
eral binational rivers or groundwater basins lie within,
near, or under tribal lands. Degradation of water qual-
ity affects the public health and environment of tribal
124
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Table 12-3
WATER
125
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
communities. Examples of tribes affected by trans-
boundary water issues include: Quechan and Cocopah
(Colorado River water rights); Campo (on the Tecate
River within the Tijuana River watershed); Tohono O'od-
ham (drawing from a binational aquifer); and Torres-
Martinez, Morongo, Twenty-nine Palms, Augustine, and
Agua Caliente (affected by uses and treatment of Col-
orado River water carried to the area by the Coachella
Canal and ultimately discharged to the Salton Sea).
Through the Border Tribal Grant Program, $17 mil-
lion was allocated in fiscal year (FY) 1997, and $5 mil-
lion in FY 1998 for wastewater and drinking water infra-
structure projects. Of the 14 tribes that submitted pro-
posals, all were awarded funds, for a total of $11.8 mil-
lion (Table 12-4). Funds have been distributed through
direct grants to tribes and through interagency agreements
(IAG) with the Indian Health Service (IHS). Following
are examples of typical projects:
Tribal Infrastructure Projects 1
Tribe Project Year(s) Amount 1
Type Awarded; (US$M) 1
Cocopah
Tohono O'odham
Manzanita
La Jolla
Paurna
San Pasqual
Pala
Quechan
Rincon
Santa Ysabel
Sycuan
Torres-Martinez
Pechanga
Mesa Grande
WWTP
PW-WW
PW
PW-WW
PW-WW
PW-WW
PW-WW
PW, Sewer
PW
PW
PW
PW-WW
PW-WW
PW
1997, 1999
1997, 1998, 1999
1998
1998
1998, 1999
1998
1998, 1999
1997
1998
998, 1999
1997
1998
1998, 1999
1998, 1999
•^•^•H
1.9
4.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.4
1.5
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
•••Ml
Total awarded through December 1999 511.8
VVWTP M Wastewater treatment plant; PW = Potable water; WW =i Wastewater ;
Source: EPA Region 9 Tribal Water Program i j
- The Quechan Tribe was awarded approximately
$1.4 million. The tribe will construct a water treat-
ment plant to improve the quality of the surface water
supply. Construction of the plant began in spring;
2000. The plant will serve more than 500 homes on
the tribal water system. A second project, begun in
fall 1999, will connect 70 homes, now on failing indi-
vidual septic systems, to the existing wastewater col-
lection and treatment system.
- The Cocopah Tribe was awarded $1.9 million to
construct two new community sewer systems. The
systems will provide better treatment than individual;
septic systems, which often fail because of high water-
table levels in the area. The project will provide first-
time community wastewater service to 139 homes in
two separate communities. Construction began in
spring 1998, and completion was expected in 2000.,
- The Tohono O'odham Nation was awarded $4.1
million. Several projects begun in 1997 will benefit
six communities. Three new wells will address high
nitrate and fluoride levels in drinking water. Four
community sewage systems will be installed. Existing
sewer infrastructure in the nations capital, Sells, will
be repaired. In addition, drinking-water infrastruc-r
ture, including a water tank and water lines, will be
installed in two communities. ;
• Total Funding for Border Infrastructure Projects -
Tables 12-5 and 12-6 (on the following page) list the
total grants awarded by both nations for border infra-
structure projects from 1995 to 1999. :
total Funding for Border Infrastructure Project
(1995-1999) _ I - !
Mexico • : •":
Type of Project
CNA Pesos
(X1000)
State and Local Total pesos!
I (x-lOOO) Agencies'(x10OO)
Table 12-4
Drinking water
Collection systems
Wastewater treatment
Studies
Totals (1995-1999)
239,000
221,000
199,000
58,000
717,000
142,000 ;
192,000
63,000
14,000
411,OOO
381,000
413,000
262,000
72,000
1,128,000
Table 12-5
* When this report was prepared, one Mexican peso was equivalent to approximately US$0.11.
WATER
126
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Total Funding for Border Infrastructure Project:
(1995-1999) !
United States ,
Place/Program
Agency
Amount
USSW1
Mexicali-Nogales-Rio Grande
IDP
San Diego IWTP ,
Border tribal Infrastructure
PDAP
Border-wide studies
Total (1995-1999)
IBWC/EPA
NADB/EPA
IBWC/EPA
. EPA ' ..
BECC/EPA
FUMEC
61
211
107
. . , 23
20
,3,5 ' !
$425.5
Table 12-6
Pretreatment Programs Related to Pollution Prevention
All waste-water infrastructure construction projects certified
by the BECC must develop pretreatment program plans.
Implementation of those plans will be of critical importance
as infrastructure facilities begin operation, if they are to
function as designed over the lifetime of the project.
Supported by a Cooperative Enforcement and Compli-
ance Workgroup grant in 1998, the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Colorado River Region has been
testing a continuous water quality monitoring station in the
New River at the international boundary in Calexico, Cal-
ifornia. The objective is to detect unusual inputs into the
river, using changes in basic water quality parameters (pH,
temperature, electrical conductivity, and dissolved oxygen).
Detection of a change triggers automatic sampling, collec-
tion, and analysis. It is expected that the information will
help pinpoint die time of the event and the type and con-
centration of the contaminant. Sharing that information
with authorities in Mexicali will help in the development of
the industrial pretreatment program.
The Comision Estatal de Servicios Piiblicos de Tijuana
(State Public Service Commission of Tijuana), the City of
San Diego, and the State of California have collaborated on
several workshops on pretreatment programs. The training
sessions have been attended by management and staff of
wastewater treatment systems throughout Baja California.
Establish Binational Priorities Related to Watershed
Planning and Management, and Develop a Long-term
Joint Program, through EPA, DOI, IBWC, CNA and
SEMARNAP, in Cooperation with State and Local
Authorities, to Systematically Map and Characterize Key
Transboundary Surface and Groundwater Basins
• Colorado River Basin - Allocation of Colorado River
water has been the subject of many treaties and agree-
ments. The Colorado River flowing into Mexico car-
ries water that has been taken, used, and returned by
agriculture and municipalities throughout die seven U.S.
Colorado River basin states. Mexico is entided to a cer-
tain quantity, but water quality is also of concern, as the
water becomes more saline with each diversion and
return. A binational technical committee convened by
the IBWC meets regularly to discuss such issues as: (1)
delivery of surplus water to Mexico; (2) options for
improving water quality; (3) impact of the Yuma, Ari-
zona desalination plant on the Ciifnaga de Santa Clara,
(Santa Clara Wetlands) one of the few remaining wet-
lands in the Colorado River delta; and (4) details of such
projects as the excavation of a sediment-setding channel
in the riverbed between the northern international
boundary and the Morelos Dam.
• Rio Grande Watershed - A binational technical
committee holds periodic meetings to define the best
and most efficient use of the shared Rio Grande water-
shed resources. To further attainment of that objective,
the committee has sponsored information exchanges, a
training course in the use of models, and workshops on
drought mitigation.
Continue Programs to Monitor the Quality of Surface
and Groundwaters, including Salinity and Sediment
Transport, to Characterize and Determine the Quality of
Water Resources
• Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Monitor-
ing Projects - The following surface water and ground-
water quality monitoring projects have been completed
or are in progress:
- Investigation of toxic substances in the Rio Grande
- Characterization of the transboundary aquifers from
Ciudad Acufia, Coahila-Del Rio, Texas to Piedras
Negras, Coahila-Eagle Pass, Texas
WATE R
127
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
- Study of groundwater quality in the area of Ciu-
dad Juarez Chihuahua-El Paso, Texas
- Study of water quality in Naco, Sonora
- Study of groundwater quality in Nogales-Nogales
(the Nogales Wash)
- Investigation of toxic substances in the Lower Col-
orado River and the New River
- Modeling of toxic substances in the New River
- Synthesis of data from the lower Colorado River
basin, including the New River, the Alamo River, and
die Salton Sea
• Rio Grande Studies - On November 13, 1992, the
IBWC approved Minute No. 289, Observation of the
Quality of the Waters Along the United States-Mexico
Border, authorizing the first phase of the Rio Grande
Toxics Substance Study (RGTSS). The study is a bina-
tional, multi-phase and multi-agency effort to charac-
terize the extent of toxic contamination of the Rio
Grande system, including the tributaries.
A full suite of environmental chemical analyses was
performed to determine the presence of contaminants
and evaluate their impact on fish and other aquatic
organisms. The study was designed to test the hypoth-
esis that industrial and agricultural sources were adding
contaminants to the river system. Concern has inten-
sified in recent years, as the number of industrial facil-
ities being buUt hi the border region continues to grow.
• Lower Colorado River Basin - On two occasions
hi 1995 and 1996, water bodies that make up the lower
Colorado River basin, including the New River, were
sampled and analyzed to determine concentrations of
chemical pollutants and effects on aquatic organisms. A
final report summarizing the results is expected this year.
• Other Water Quality Studies
- Agua Prieta and Naco: In 1994, water quality
concerns were identified by the binational Northeast
Sonora-Cochise County, Arizona Health Council
(NSCCHC). In 1996, the U.S. Agency for Interna-
tional Development (USAID) provided funding
through the International City/County Management
Association (ICMA) to Enlace Ecoldgico AC., a. Mex-
ican nongovernmental organization, to conduct a
water quality project in the municipalities of Agua
Prieta; Cananea; and Naco, Sonora. Both sections of
the IBWC reviewed the project plan. Enlace Ecol6gi-
co, the Universidad de Sonora-Departamento de Inves-
tigaciones Cientificas y TecnoUgicas (DICTUS, or the
University of Sonera-Department of Scientific Stud-
ies and Technology), and the three Sonoran munici-
palities developed the study. EPA funded the Ari-:
zona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) I
to provide laboratory support for sample analysis. The;
Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) pro-
vided training for DICTUS investigators. The Bor-
der Ecology Project, a U.S. nongovernmental organ-
ization, provided technical support. Results of the
study are being reviewed. Binational public meetings
to discuss the findings will take place in 2000.
- Nogales-Nogales: In 1996, the IBWC Joint Report
of Principal Engineers Relative to the Joint Monitoring
of the Quality of the Groundwater in the Ambos Nogales
Area was signed. The objective of the binational study
was to determine groundwater quality along the allu-
vial aquifer of the Nogales Wash. The Nogales Wash
originates 8.6 kilometers south of the international.
boundary and flows north dirough Nogales, Sonora
and Nogales, Arizona. Monitoring wells were dug on
both sides of the border. Soil and groundwater sam--
pies were collected quarterly for one year and analyzed
by laboratories in both countries for heavy metals,
organic compounds, and general water quality char-
acteristics. Data were compared with Mexican water
quality guidelines, the critirios ecol6gicos de calidad de
agua (CECA, or ecological water quality criteria) and
Arizona Aquifer Water Quality Standards (AWQS).
According to the data, groundwater quality exceed^-
ed both AWQS and CECA guidelines for nitrates and
coliform bacteria in the aquifer. An organic solvent,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), was also detected in con-
centrations exceeding the CECA criterion in Mexico,
but below the AWQS criterion in Arizona. The dis-
tribution suggests the existence of a PCE plume. Pro-
ject data also indicated the presence in Sonora of iron
and manganese at levels above the CECA criteria.
Arsenic levels in Arizona exceeded AWQS. As a result
of this study, EPA, IBWC, ADEQ, and CNA are
exploring possible alternatives for further binational
activities to locate and remove the sources of PCE.
WATER
128
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
In 1998, the Arizona Department of Water
Resources (ADWR) and CNA held joint meetings to
exchange data on groundwater flow models to assist
both nations in regional planning and operational
efforts. The models will enable the water management
agencies to plan for resource allocation during drought
conditions, evaluate the effects of recharge projects, and
determine how future development adjacent to the Santa
Cruz River will affect base flow and seasonal variation
in groundwater levels. The models can also be used to
predict the fate of contaminants discharged into the sur-
face water systems and into the flood-plain aquifer. The
two agencies, each working with a different model, will
coordinate efforts to ensure model compatibility.
- New River: The California Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board, Colorado River Region, monitors
water quality in the New River at the international
boundary in Calexico. Monthly 8-hour and quarter-
ly 24-hour samples are analyzed for a variety of sub-
stances and conditions (Table 12-7). This program
provides baseline information that will be compared
with water quality in the New River after the infra-
structure projects in Mexicali have been built and
become operational.
New River Water Quality Parameter
Flow, temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and settleable solids,
methylene-blue-active substances (MBAS), total phosphate, phenol,
cyanide, nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite), organic nitrogen, hardness,
alkalinity, total dissolved solids, totaf suspended solids, turbidity, bio-
chemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand, total and fecal
coliform, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds
Table 12-7
- Santa Cruz River: Two studies have been per-
formed to evaluate water quality in the Santa Cruz
River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
completed a toxicity study of ambient water. Vol-
unteers from Friends of the Santa Cruz River, a local
nongovernmental organization, have completed a water
quality study. Publication of the report is pending.
- San Pedro River: The San Pedro River is the one
of the last free-flowing rivers in the United States.
The willow flycatcher, an endangered species, inhab-
its San Pedro riparian corridors. A coalition of gov-
ernment and private agencies has formed to purchase
in-stream acreage within the San Pedro River (Ari-
zona) watershed and channel to protect willow fly-
catcher habitat. The project will include the devel-
opment of a flow regime management plan that will
help to recharge groundwater to prevent land subsi-
dence and protect well-water supplies, as well as main-
tain riparian habitat and stream flow.
Develop Personnel Training Programs Related to Water
Management Issues
• Operation and Maintenance - The Water Work-
group is strongly committed to providing operators of
water and wastewater systems on the border with the
information and education they will need to keep facil-
ities running as designed.
EPA has delivered to wastewater plant operators in the
eastern border region binational training courses on waste-
water treatment techniques, the importance of surface and
groundwater protection, testing, and quality control, as
well as methods of maintaining treatment plants and col-
lection systems. In addition, water supply operators along
the border were trained in a binational forum on the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The EPA manuals and training materials for both pro-
grams were translated into Spanish.
With the support of the EPA, the State of Califor-
nia, and the City of San Diego have developed training
workshops for operation and maintenance of water and
wastewater treatment plants and distribution and col-
lection systems. The workshops are intended specifical-
ly for binational projects. Training materials have been
translated into Spanish and customized for specific facil-
ities in Mexicali and Tijuana.
The sister cities of Calexico and Mexicali have devel-
oped a local binational certification program. Staff of the
Comisidn Estatal de Servicios PMicos de Mexicali (CESPM,
or State Public Service Commission of Mexicali) received
on-site training in water and wastewater treatment in
Calexico. As a result, they were able to complete Cali-
fornia requirements for operator certification. The train-
ing program will continue and is expected to lead to a
Mexicali-based program.
WATER
129
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The Fundacidn de M&dco-Estaetos Unidospara la Cien-
cia (FUMEC, or Mexico-United States Foundation for
Science) established in 1992 to support binational research
projects in science and technology, has provided assistance
for the customized translation of training manuals and
programs for public agencies in Ciudad Juarez and other
border communities.
• Environmental and Water Quality Education - EPA
has also provided grants to several border communities to
conduct training courses in environmental education. In
1997, the San Diego Natural History Museum received
a grant to train teachers in the Tijuana and Ensenada,
Baja California areas on general principles of ecology and
water quality testing. In 1998, a total of 100 teachers
received training. Mexican state and federal education
agency staff in Mexico also attended the training cours-
,es. Appendix 7 provides additional information about
the Border Community Grants.
Educate the Public about Water and Public Health Issues,
Promoting Its Efficient and Rational Use, along with
Conservation and Recycling
• Agua para Beber - In 1997, Project Concern Inter-
national was awarded a grant to increase understanding of
environmental sanitation in communities along the Baja
California border through their Agua para Beber program.
The program demonstrates techniques for storage and dis-
infection of water. Ten volunteers were trained in com-
munity health issues. They visited 400 homes, distribut-
ing drinking water containers, teaching people how to test
water and purify it using chlorine, and demonstrating
methods of safe water storage for both drinking and domes-
tic use. It is estimated that 2,085 people benefitted from
the program.
The Center for Environmental Resource Manage-
ment at the University of Texas at El Paso also received
funding through EPA and the Southwest Center for
Environmental Research and Policy, a consortium of four
U.S. universities, to develop and implement Agua para
Beber in El Paso and Ciudad Judrez. Working with 51
volunteer health promoters, the initial pilot effort edu-
cated more than 500 families in water purification and
hygiene. The program was subsequently transferred to
community-based organizations to enhance program sus-
tainability. More than 10,000 individuals and 175 health
promoters have been educated and trained since the:
establishment of the program in 1994. ;
• Agua Limpia en Casa - The Water Workgroup and,
the Environmental Health Workgroup, in collaboration i
with CNA, have developed the Agua Limpia en Casa
(Clean Water in Homes) program, an outreach effort to,
educate small communities about the relationship'
between basic sanitation and water borne illnesses. Mex-
ico's Secretaria de Salud (SSA, or Secretariat of Health),
FUMEC, the NADB, and state health agencies are par-
ticipating in the program, which began during the third
quarter of 1998 with a project in Ojinaga, Chihuahua.;
The results of the project were mixed, indicating the
need for further work to inform people about the rela-|
tionship between clean water and public health.
Other projects, planned for border communities in
Sonora, will focus on such topics as the importance of
water quality improvement, protection of water sources,
efficient use of water, promotion of disinfection tech-
niques, implementation of wastewater systems, promo-
tion of appropriate handling of foodstuffs, and devel-
opment of environmental sanitation certification pro-
grams. Appendix 12 provides more information about
the Agua Limpia en Casa, program. !
Provide Opportunities for Public Participation in
Decision Making Related to Water Infrastructure; Present
All Aspects of the Projects, including the Financial
Implications; Encourage Cross-border Communication
and Exchange of Information at the Federal, State, and
Local Government Levels
A well designed and implemented public participation program
is one of the BECC s certification requirements for every envi-
ronmental infrastructure project. Project sponsors must doc-
ument effective efforts to inform the public about the project:,
to provide opportunities for public input, and to include that
input in project development. Once the basic planning has
been completed, the project must be presented in a series of
public meetings. All aspects of the project are to be present-
ed in sufficient detail, including the design, location, and cost.
It must be made clear diat realization of the project will require
that the community commit some level of its resources to pay
for the long-term sustainability of the project.
130
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Communication about the progress of infrastructure projects
has increased through binational technical committees, as
well as public meetings held in border communities on both
sides of the border. Collaboration on water quality studies
has increased opportunities for binational sampling efforts,
data comparison, and information exchange.
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
Types of Environmental Indicators i
— .
• • J PRESSURE: ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT INDUCE
UB PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
B
EL-
- •- ---""" -.-:- •-:•.-••. .-.•.-•
STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
-- . - --..-.. :, - ...
RESPONSE: ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESSURES
As described in previous sections of this chapter, the bina-
tional priorities for the Water Workgroup are environmental
infrastructure development, pollution prevention and water-
shed planning, water quality monitoring, environmental train-
ing, and public education and involvement. The indicators
discussed below have been developed to relate the benefits of
a project to the population being served (Mexico) or to pres-
ent narrative or numeric water quality standards (United
States). The workgorup expects to be able to measure the
effectiveness of the Border Infrastructure Program when more
of the water and wastewater projects are fully operational.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS (MEXICO)
It is expected that infrastructure projects currently under
construction or pending construction will produce signifi-
cant changes in environmental indicators in the near future.
infrastructure in the border area to allow the safe, reliable
delivery of drinking water.
This indicator identifies the percentage of the population
in Mexico's border region that is served drinking water from a
central system and is intended to help assess the effectiveness
of current and planned infrastructure projects (Table 12-8).
Table 12-8
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL VOLUME OF DRINKING WATER BEING
DISINFECTED PRIOR TO DELIVERY
Data collected since 1996 indicate that 100 percent of all
water that is consumed for drinking is disinfected. Unless
the data change in the future, this indicator will be deleted
from future indicator reports.
PERCENTAGE OF MEXICAN BORDER POPULATION SERVED
BY WASTEWATER COLLECTION
Wastewater contains chemicals and disease-causing organisms
that can threaten public health. Sewers are needed to col-
lect and convey wastewater and minimize public exposure
to untreated wastewater.
This indicator is expressed as a percentage of the pop-
ulation served by a wastewater treatment system (Table 12-
9). The workgroup will endeavor to obtain data for this
indicator in the near future.
1995
,.2000.
Percentage Served
34
75
Table 12-9
PERCENTAGE OF MEXICAN BORDER POPULATION WITH POTABLE
DRINKING WATER
Access to a reliable source of drinking water is critical for
public health since many disease-causing organisms live in
contaminated water. The Water Workgroup is actively
engaged in the planning and construction of drinking-water
WATER
131
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
PERCENTAGE OF MEXICAN BORDER POPULATION CONNECTED
TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Treatment of wastewater is necessary to remove pollutants
and disease-causing organisms. Exposure to untreated waste-
water can jeopardize public health.
This indicator is intended to help assess the effective-
ness of current and planned wastewater treatment infra-
structure projects in Mexico's border region. Because data
are limited, only estimated wastewater treatment is pre-
sented (Table 12-10). The workgroup will endeavor to
obtain the data necessary to fulfill this indicator in the
near future.
Percentage Connected
1995
2000
60
75
Table 12-10
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER QUALITY
INDICATORS (UNITED STATES)
Local, state, and federal agencies conduct water quality mon-
itoring programs in the border region. The programs are not
coordinated with one another. Different agencies measure
different sets of water quality characteristics; diey have inde-
pendent sampling schedules and different data quality objec-
tives. The U.S. participants in the Border XXI Water Work-
group have mapped existing information from current or
recently completed monitoring programs of the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) and CNA. Table 12-11 lists the con-
stituents according to whether they are monitored in surface
or groundwater programs. Appendix 14 contains the maps.
QUAtrTY OF TRANSBOUNDARY SURFACE WATERS
The U.S. participants in the Water Workgroup have mapped
existing information from the USGS and Mexican agencies
about levels of constituents in surface water bodies obtained
through current or recently completed monitoring efforts.
Maps were constructed to illustrate trends in water quality
data for constituents analyzed over a 10-year period, from
1987 to 1997. The maps included watersheds of the Col-
orado River, the New River, the Rio Grande, the San Pedro
U.S. -Mexico Border Region Water Quality Data Base {
Parameter Surface Plater Body Groundwa-ter Basin I 1
'! "- i • • . " ' ! 1
Longitude
Latitude
Chloride
Specific Conductance
Hardness
Phosphate
Oil and grease
Nitrate
Ammonia
Turbidity
Fecal coliform
Dissolved oxygen
Total dissolved solids
MBAS (detergents)
San Luis Rfo Colorado
1 -
Morelos Reservoir
Wellton-Mohawk Canal
. Mexicali
, Calexico
Westmorland
Matamorps-Brownsville
Reynosa-McAllen
Falcon Reservoir
Nuevo Laredo-Laredo
Piedras Negras-Eagle Pass
Ciudad Juarez-El Paso
Elephant Butte Reservoir
San Pedro River
Santa Cruz River
Edwards Aquifer
(Del Rfo-Ciudad Acufia)
* \
Hueco Bolson
(El Paso-Giudad Juarez)
Mimbres 'Basin
San Pedro River
Mexicali-lmperial Valleys
, '
IMBAS = Methylene-blue-active substances i . , j
1 lit i 1
Table 12-11 \
River, and the Santa Cruz River. Information about certain
surface-water constituents is summarized below. Appendix
14 contains the maps.
• Nutrients - The presence of nitrogen in water, meas-
ured in milligrams per liter, is an indicator of human impact. \
Nitrates are found in agricultural runoff; ammonia is a char- ,
acteristic of effluent from municipal wastewater treatment,
plants (Table 12-12). ;
Data were collected at nine sites in California, Texas,'
Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and .
Tamaulipas. Appendix 14 provides additional details about;
site locations.
Constituent
Nitrogen - Nitrates
! ; Number of Sites j ' [ '•
Increasing i Decreasing ijlo Change
Concentrations Concentrations .
Nitrogen - Ammonia
4 '•':':"• '
-.3,
Table 12-12
• Salts - Specific conductance and total dissolved solids
indicate the level of salts present in a water sample,!
expressed as a measure of electrical charge (conductivi-
ty) or weight (milligrams per liter) for total dissolved
solids. Total chloride is a measurement of a specific
W ATE R
132
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
chemical and, in fresh water samples, usually indicates
the impact of human activities, both agricultural and
municipal (Table 12-13).
Data on specific conductivity and total chloride were
collected at locations in all states (except New Mexico and
Coahuila) along the border. Data on total dissolved solids
were collected in the same states. Appendix 3 contains
additional details about site locations.
.... . — ,
Number of Sites i
Parameter Increasing Decreasing No Change
Concentrations Concentrations j
Specific Conductivity
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Chloride
6
2
4
3
4
4 - •
13
18
13
Table 12-13
• Turbidity and Bacteria - Turbidity is an indirect
measurement of the amount of particles in a water sam-
ple. The turbidity of river water and other water bod-
ies may vary, depending on the type of rock, sediment,
or habitat through which they flow. Before the Colorado
River was dammed, for example, it carried a large sedi-
ment load and was, therefore, naturally very turbid.
Decaying organic matter and microscopic organisms, such
as plankton and bacteria, will also increase turbidity.
Fecal coliform is a measurement of a type of bac-
teria found in vertebrate gut. It is an indirect meas-
urement of the potential that human pathogenic bac-
teria are present (Table 12-14).
Data on turbidity were collected at 13 locations in all
states along the border except New Mexico. Data on fecal
coliform were collected at 14 locations in the same states.
Parameter I
________^-
^^^^^^•ffiiSiBli^^^^^^^B
Increasing
Concentrations
Number of Sites
Decreasing
: Concentrations
Np Change
Fecal Coliform
11
Table 12-14
QUALITY OF TRANSBOUNDARY SUBSURFACE WATERS
The workgroup continues to develop subsurface water qual-
ity indicators for the following basins in the United States
and Mexico and will present the results in future reports:
• Edwards Aquifer at Del Rio-Ciudad Acufia
• Hueco Bolsdn at El Paso-Ciudad Juarez
• Mimbres Basin
• San Pedro River groundwater basins
• Imperial-Mexicali valleys groundwater basins
[I"!' J FUTURE
f&C*- „. - PERSPECTIVES
&& & " ^ ^ ,H «= ^ ^ ^
Infrastructure Projects
Mexico
• The integrated sanitation project for Mexicali, cur-
rently under construction, will increase the amount of
of domestic and industrial wastewater treated from 67
percent to 100 percent.
• The north and south wastewater treatment plants of
the sanitation project for Ciudad Juarez are currently
under construction. Once completed, treatment of
wastewater will increase from 0 percent to 100 percent.
• The start-up of the parallel works system and the
rehabilitation and expansion of the Planta de Tratamien-
to (Treatment Plant) San Antonio de los Buenos in Tijua-
na are scheduled for the second half of 2000.
• The rehabilitation of the Reynosa Wastewater Treatment
Plant Number 1 and pumping stations will be completed
this year, at which time construction of two new waste-
water treatment plants will begin. Rehabilitation and expan-
sion of the primary and secondary sanitary sewer networks
is also planned. The projects will increase the number of
households that have sewer service and are connected to
treatment facilities from 57 percent to 90 percent.
United States
• Improvement of the water treatment facilities and dis-
tribution system in Calexico will raise drinking water
quality to the new California Department of Health Ser-
vices standards. Construction began in March 1999.
• In Del Rio, construction of a potable water treatment
plant, replacement of existing raw water pumping facil-
133
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ides and potable water storage tanks, and expansion of
the distribution system will increase water clarity by
removing a higher percentage of participates. This proj-
ect will bring water quality into compliance with the
SDWA standard, and will reduce water losses through
distribution system leaks.
* Construction of a water treatment plant and expan-
sion and rehabilitation of the water distribution system
will improve the water quality in Donna, Texas. The
plant will serve colonias in the vicinity of the city.
Upgrades and replacements of die existing wastewater
system will provide colonia residents with sewer service.
• Expansion of the Jonathan Rogers Water Treatment
Plant in El Paso will bring potable water to colonias in
die city and neighboring areas. Completion of the three-
phase water and wastewater projects for the Lower Val-
ley Water District in El Paso County will improve the
delivery and quality of the potable water supply and will
provide wastewater treatment to households in the Socor-
ro and San Elizario colonias.
* In Heber, Arizona, expansion and rehabilitation of
the existing wastewater treatment plant will reduce pub-
lic and environmental health risks associated with a sys-
tem that is being used beyond its capacity.
• Construction of the South Bay Water Reclamation
Plant for water reuse in San Diego will provide additional
treatment capacity within the South Bay area, reducing
the potential for sewer spills, in addition to providing
another source of reusable water for the community.
Binational, federal, state, and local agencies and institutions,
working widi the Border XXI Water Workgroup, have over-
seen the planning of improvements in drinking water treat-
ment and delivery systems, wastewater collection and treat-
ment systems, and solid waste handling and disposal. Pro-
jects certified in the BECC process have been completed, are
in progress, or are planned for the largest cities along the
border, including Matamoros, Reynosa, Ciudad Juarez, El
Paso, Nogales (Arizona), Nogales (Sonora), Mexicali, Tijua-
na, and San Diego. Numerous smaller projects are planned,
including a specific program to bring services to colonias.
In the workgroup's estimation, local sponsorhip of
projects, with assistance and support from BECC and
NADB, has proven to be an excellent method of pro-
moting infrastructure development. However, the part-
nership has reached the point at which demand for grant
support exceeds the funding agencies' - particularly EPA's \
- ability to meet it. Although many projects have been .
initiated, it is clear that the need to support environ- \
mental infrastructure projects is still strong.
Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention i
Pretreatment and pollution prevention programs are in the
initial stages of development along the border. As planned
projects are completed and begin operations, the need to
put such programs in place increases. Binational and fed- ;
eral agencies are discussing ways to integrate monitoring and
enforcement programs with public education campaigns,
industrial source reduction, pollution prevention, training
in pretreatment methods, and economic incentives. An envi-
ronmental management systems pilot grant program to assist
municipalities on the border in evaluating their current prac- I
tices and processes for long-term sustainability and in adopt- ;
ing comprehensive environmental management systems,
through training and technical assistance is in the planning:
stage. ;
Watershed Planning and Management
Watershed planning and management will continue1
throughout the border region, with special attention to •
binational issues related to Colorado River and Rio Grande j
water quality and quantity required to maintain or improve
public and environmental health.
Research in the Rio Grande will continue to support the
effort to reduce sources of pollution. Continued work to i
characterize transboundary aquifers will increase under-stand-,
ing about how surface water and groundwater resources are;
interconnected. That understanding, in turn will aid man-i
agement in making decisions that will protect all resources. •
Water Quality and Environmental Indicators
Continuation and expansion of the effort to characterize
water quality in transboundary water bodies, especially the;
Colorado River and the Rio Grande and their tributaries,
are of critical importance. The activities will document,
whether the construction and maintenance of environmen-
tal infrastructure have achieved the expected improvements
in water quality of public water bodies.
134
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
Training
Workshops to provide training for operators of potable water,
wastewater treatment, and wastewater collection systems will
continue to be offered. It is expected that, by the end of
2000, a majority of the operators of principal infrastructure
systems in Mexican border cities will have received initial
training and that all instructional material will have been
customized to reflect the actual conditions on site at each
specific facility. Additional and expanded training programs
will be integrated into all future project planning and imple-
mentation.
Water Use, Conservation, and Public Health
The pilot phase of the Agua Limpia en Casa program will
continue in border cities in Chihuahua and Sonora. After
review and evaluation, the program will be expanded to other
Mexican border communities within the next two years.
135
-------
,.,
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
This report provides the first comprehensive account of the
efforts over the past five years of the U.S.-Mexico Border
XXI Program to improve environmental, health, and natu-
ral resource conditions and promote sustainable
development in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
By providing an evaluation of the progress and the
limitations of the Border XXI Program, the fed-
eral governments of the United States and Mexi-
co hope that the reader will learn more about not
only the strengths and weaknesses of the Border
XXI Program, but also the complexity of the
endeavor and the scale of the challenges that
remain. While this report is retrospective, it also
marks the beginning of a forward-looking process
for augmenting the participation of border resi-
dents, increasing local-level capacity, and creating
additional public and private partnerships to meet
the needs of the border region.
The Border XXI partnership has achieved
notable successes, among them a vasdy increased
level of infrastructure development, innovative and
wide-reaching mechanisms for addressing border
cleanup, accords with border states and tribes, and
an ambitious agenda for work with the private sec-
tor. The indicators project, updated in this report,
provides the public with qualitative and quantitative assess-
ments of those and other aspects of the program. In addi-
tion, the Border XXI Program has provided an important
mechanism for increasing the depth of public involvement
in environmental protection and has provided more infor-
mation and better tools for doing so than existed before the
program began.
Despite substantial efforts and important advances, seri-
ous environmental problems remain, "water pol-
lution, poor air quality, lack of infrastructure, expo-
sure to toxics, outbreaks of infectious diseases, and
problems related to the transboundary shipment
of hazardous material are just some of the issues
that the border communities continue to face.
Many of the difficulties in addressing those prob-
lems are attributable to the area's staggering growth,
a growth that, even by the most conservative pro-
jections, will result in the near doubling of the
regions population to 19 million people by 2020.
This explosive population growth, coupled with
unplanned development, has challenged both insti-
tutional and infrastructural capacity. Responding
to various environmental and health concerns in
a vast area experiencing almost limidess growth
and having very limited resources, and across cul-
tures, languages, and political systems, has proven
to be among the most challenging aspects of the
implemention of the program.
The two federal governments acknowledge the
seriousness and magnitude of the work that lies
ahead and hope that this report helps to spur further dia-
logue about not only the design and scope of the next bor-
der cooperation framework, but also the form and function
of future collaborative opportunities.
CLOSING REMARKS
-------
-------
- 1],S.-Mexico Border XXI, Pro grain; ^rcrgtess Report 1-996-
-------
1 Si
fl
• **ii™ *
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 1
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Environmental indicators provide an objective assessment on the state of the environment and overall environmen-
tal improvement along the border. In this report, each of .the nine Border XXI Workgroups has provided an update
on the status of the binational environmental indicators presented in the 7997 United States-Mexico Border Envi-
ronmental Indicators Report.
The indicators presented in each workgroup chapter are defined according to the United Nations Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) framework for organizing indicators. A tab above each indicator
denotes which of the three categories a particular indicator falls into. Each indicator is categorized as a pressure,
state, or response indicator as defined below.
PRESSURE INDICATORS
Pressure indicators are measures of pressure on the environment caused by human activ-
ities. An example is the amount of pollutant loading on surface or subsurface waters by a given industry or process.
STATE INDICATORS
State indicators are measures of the quality of the environment and the quantity of natural
resources, and include the health effects on human populations and ecosystems caused by the deterioration of the
environment. An example is the concentration of a particular chemical in surface or subsurface waters. Unlike the
pressure indicator example above, which measures the amount of pollution loading, a state indicator captures the
concentration of a pollutant in surface or subsurface water.
RESPONSE INDICATORS
Response indicators are measures of the efforts undertaken by society to respond to envi-
ronmental changes and issues. An example is the amount of alternative chemicals substituted for water polluting
substances in a particular industry or process.
Using the OECD model allows the workgroups to evaluate environmental and human health conditions under a con-
sistent methodology to better determine the best strategies for addressing environmental and human health issues
along the border. As more data are collected and analyzed, the indicators will be presented in a manner that inte-
grates pressure, state, and response indicators and their impact on human health. In addition, future environmen-
tal indicator reports will present an analysis and interpretation of environmental indicator trends.
BS*
Hfcl
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
1
-------
^ SH wwS^iM v^"" * C I
*H" _, .s ».«»
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
In May 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and SEMARNAP signed an MOU that pledged coop-
eration in forestry and natural resources conservation. The MOU updated a long-standing cooperative partner-
ship between USDA and Mexico's dissolved Secretana de Agriculture y Recursos Hidraulicos (SARH, or Secre-
tariat of Agriculture and Water Resources. The SARH was replaced by the current Secretaria de Agriculture,
Ganadena y Desarrollo Rural (SAGAR, or Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development) and the
Comisidn Nacional del Agua [CNA, or National Water Commission]). The MOU identified areas of cooperation
in sustainable forest management, soil conservation, and restoration issues.
HISTORY OF U.S.-MEXICO COOPERATION ON NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES
a1""™ I
APPENDIX 2
HISTORY OF U.S.-MEXICO COOPERATION ON NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES
• The 7936 Convention between the United States and Mexico on the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game
Mammals enabled the two governments to work together to protect migratory birds and shorebirds by imple-
menting hunting regulations; creating reserves; and conducting annual, binational reconnaissance and aerial sur-
veys of major wetlands in Mexico and the United States.
• The Trilateral Committee for Wildlife Conservation of the United States, Mexico, and Canada was created in 1994
to bring together top officials, scientists, and resource managers representing wildlife agencies of all three coun- H
tries to collaborate on biodiversity conservation issues. It*
• Other notable conservation efforts have been conducted under the 7988 Agreement on the Conservation of Wet- ^
lands and their Migratory Birds and the 7994 North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Under these agree- £+
ments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participates in partnerships established in important wetlands regions ^
of the three countries. $
• The U.S. National Park Service and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE, or National Institute of Ecolo- f"
gy) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 1988 for technical exchange and cooperation in the fields
of conservation and management for national parks and protected areas. '"
• The MOU between the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and Mexico's Secretana de Medio Ambiente, Recur- ^
sos Naturales, y Pesca (SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries) con- f-
cerning scientific and technical cooperation on biological data and information was signed in 1995 to exchange ?
biological data and information networks needed to support the conservation, sound management, and sustain- • -~
able use of biological resources. * _
• In 1996, the U.S. Geological Survey and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia, e Informatica (INEGI,
or National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Information) signed Annex II of an existing MOU to begin an k~-
aerial photography initiative along the U.S.-Mexico border. The initiative will support digital mapping efforts and
the integration of geographic information systems and data for geospatial analysis for both sides of the border.
The data will contribute to more effective and efficient decision making in areas such as the environment, geol- *""
ogy and hydrology studies, waste disposal, land use planning, and pollution and disaster responses.
• The 7997 Letter of Intent between DOI and SEMARNAP for Joint Work in Natural Protected Areas on the U.S.- I
Mexico Border expanded existing cooperative activities in the conservation of shared border ecosystems and -1
habitats.
i,
V.
tec
ifci
{£••'"
-------
1 . .*>!
-------
i. * .
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 3
U.S.-MEXICO BUSINESS AND TRADE COMMUNITY:
THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
In furtherance of the goals of the Border XXI Environmental Framework, these Principles have been developed
through a public/private partnership to promote sustainable development in the U.S.-Mexico border area;
In recognition of the objectives of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation to: foster envi-
ronmental protection and improvement throughout North America for the well-being of present and future genera-
tions; promote sustainable development; enhance environmental compliance; promote economically efficient and
effective environmental measures; and promote pollution prevention;
In recognition of existing obligations to comply with domestic environmental laws;
The signatories below will work together, and in conjunction with other federal and state government agencies and
industry representatives, to promote voluntary implementation of the following Principles of Environmental Steward-
ship by corporate entities and their affiliates throughout the United States and Mexico, at all of their operational
locations, consistent with the domestic laws of each country:
_^_^__ Make substantive top management commitments to sustainable develop-
ment and improved environmental performance through policies that emphasize pollution prevention, energy effi-
ciency, adherence to appropriate international standards, environmental leadership, and public communications.
TOP MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT:
2. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE AND POLLUTION PREVENTION:
_^_^___ Implement innovative environmental auditing, assess-
ment and improvement programs to identify and correct current and potential compliance problems and utilize pol-
lution prevention and energy efficiency measures to improve overall environmental performance.
ENABLING SYSTEMS:
Through open and inclusive processes, develop and foster implementation of environ-
mental management systems which provide a framework for ensuring day-to-day compliance in process operations,
pollution prevention, energy efficiency, and improved environmental performance. Encourage the use of environmental
audits, pollution prevention assessments, and employee training and involvement as integral parts of the compa-
ny's culture at home and abroad.
II
4. MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT;
Develop measures of environmental performance to demon- IS
strate adherence to these Principles. Periodically assess the progress toward meeting the organization's environ- ffj1"1
mental goals and tie results to actions in improving environmental performance. H
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS:
Consistent with the sovereign host country's domestic laws and policies govern-
ing environmental protection and the protection of confidential business information: voluntarily make available to
the public information on the organization's environmental performances and releases, as well as on the perform-
ance of its environmental management system relative to these Principles, based on established objectives and tar-
gets; and voluntarily provide avenues for receiving suggestions from and establishing dialogue with the public about
the company's environmental performance.
U.S.-MEXICO BUSINESS AND TRADE COMMUNITY: THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
6. INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP:
Work with other companies operating in the same region or industry sub-sector to
^ compliance, pollution prevention practices, energy efficiency, and overall envi-
ronmental performance. For example, explore cooperative strategies such as by-product synergy, joint industry sub-
sector efforts, or technical assistance to smaller enterprises, including the implementation of environmental audits.;
Promote and give support to environmental stewardship and sus-
7. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP-
organization operates, for example, through investments in local
environmental infrastructure, health, education, and improving public environmental awareness.
SIGNATORIES:
The Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator
| The United States Environmental Protection Agency
May 28, 1999
f
I The Honorable Julia Carabias, Secretary June 4, 1999
Mexican Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries
'i Albert C. Zapanta, President
The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
June 4, 1999
Javier Cabrera Bravo, General Manager
The Border Environment Cooperation Commission
June 4, 1999
v' >, ^ "" fflnw^ r™"*' 'L"nip'1* •**~'fr°'f"^ ^, ^
**
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 4
U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI BINATIONAL REGIONAL SUBWORKGROUPS
AND MAJOR BORDER-WIDE INITIATIVES
-
WORKGROUP
SUBWORKGROUP OR INITIATIVE
Air
• Paso Del Norte Joint Advisory Committee*
• Binational Ambos Nogales Subworkgroup
• Binational Douglas/Agua Prieta Subworkgroup
• Energy and Air Quality Subworkgroup
• Border Congestion Subworkgroup
• Mexico Emission Inventory Methodology
Advisory Council
• Binational California/Baja California
. Subworkgroup
• El Paso-Ciudad Juarez-Sunland Park
Subworkgroup
* This group was created under the La Paz
Agreement and has been incorporated into the
architecture of the Border XXI Program.
e££ I
PWF"--* I
feftj
"
Pffi!
Contingency Planning
and Emergency Response
No subworkgroups (as of date of publication)
Cooperative Enforcement
and Compliance
Environmental Health
• Binational California-Baja California Subworkgroup
• Binational Arizona-Sonora Subworkgroup
• Binational Texas-New Mexico-Chihuahua
Subworkgroup
• Binational. Texas-Coahuila Subworkgroup,..,
• Binational'texas-Nuevo Le'6n-Tamaulipas
Subworkgroup
• Pesticide Exposure and Health Effects on
Children Initiative
Pediatric Lead (Pb) Exposure Initiative
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Initiative
Health Alerts and Communication Initiative
. Neural,.Tu.be .Defects (NTD) Surveillance .Initiative ,
.Advanced training Initiative -; , •'• ":••;'1-'- •'•'.'.
Toxicology Center Development Initiative
U.S.-MEXICO BORDER XXI BINATIONAL REGIONAL SUBWORKGROUPS AND MAJOR BORDER-WIDE INTIATIVES
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
WORKGROUP
Environmental Information
SUBWORKGROUP OR INITIATIVE
GIS/Geospatial Subworkgroup (This group
is inactive until the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA] and Mexico's
Secretana de Medio Ambiente, Recursos
Naturales, y Pesca [SEMARNAP, or
Secretariat of the Environment, Natural
Resources, and Fisheries] can identify
a Mexican co-chair and committee
representative. In the interim, mapping
and GIS activities are being coordinated
by the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] and
Mexico's Institute National de Estadistica,
Geografia, e Informatica [INEGI, or National
Institute of Statistics, Geography, and
Information].)
Data Exchange and Release of Information
Subworkgroup
Hazardous and Solid Waste
• Binational California-Baja California
Subworkgroup
• Binational Arizona-Sonora Subworkgroup
• Binational Texas-New Mexico-Chihuahua
Subworkgroup
• Binational Texas-Coahuila Subworkgroup
• Binational Texas-Nuevo Leon-Tamaulipas
Subworkgroup
Natural Resources
California-Baja California Subworkgroup
Pollution Prevention
No Subworkgroup (as of date of publication)
Water
• No Subworkgroup (as of date of publication)
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 5
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESOURCE COMMITMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS
In both the United States and Mexico, funding at the federal level for implementation of border initiatives is provided
through annual appropriations. For the United States, funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1 is an
important component of the overall budget for border activities, although many other agencies, including the U.S. Depart-
ments of the Interior, Health and Human Services, and State, also have border-related appropriations. The states also
budget for border-related activities, as do many tribes and municipalities, although, in many such cases, the origin of
resources is a federal agency (as is the case for EPA grants for infrastructure revolving funds operated by the states for
water-related projects).
The 7996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Framework Document (Frame-
work Document) provided quantitative information about EPA budgets for
border needs for the period 1995 to 1997. In this appendix, figures are
provided for the period 1994 to 2000 to provide a longer perspective.
The Framework Document also addressed other areas, including fund-
ing for the North American Development Bank (NADB) and ERA'S water
infrastructure funding. Developments in those areas are also included in
this appendix.
200
150
100
EPA Border Funding and FTE
1994-99
Funding
FTE
FV94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 Pros 99
Full-time Equivalent
OVERALL TREND
Figure 1
STATE AND TRIBAL GRANTS
State-Tribal Grants vs. non State-Tribal Grants
200
150
100
8 Not state-tribal grants
8! State-tribal grants
FY = Fiscal year
The trend over the period 1994 to 2000 has been
toward smaller total appropriations for border funding, represented by
the 1995 high of more than $175 million and the 1999 low of some $73
million—a difference of more than $100 million. The full-time-equivalent,
or FTE, allocated for EPA border staff has also been on a downward
trend, although the level of FTE does not track closely with funding lev-
els. Figure 1 shows those trends.
The bulk of EPA border funding during
the period 1994 to 2000 was for state and tribal assistance grants, large-
ly for construction of infrastructure projects in the United States and Mex-
ico. Those funds are administered cooperatively with the states and
tribes and, since 1997, through the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC) and NADB for water-related funds (see Figure 2 for Kffare 2
a comparision of state and tribal grants with non-state and tribal grants). EPA has provided $20 million in grants to the
BECC for technical assistance to projects seeking certification. The agency partners with NADB to administer $211 mil-
lion in funds for the construction of BECC-certified projects. While the sums are considerable, so is the need: munici-
pal infrastructure is among the most costly investments any government makes, and construction is the principal front-
end cost. EPA grant funds have been invested in more than a dozen infrastructure projects in the United States and
Mexico, such as the first-ever wastewater plants in Ciudad Juarez, scheduled for completion in 2000. The total popu-
lation served by projects built or under construction through the BECC and NADB is more than 7 million.
It is worthwhile to note that there is very limited discretion on EPA's part in the administration of the funds once they
1 All figures in this appendix are drawn from official EPA and congressional sources, with the exception of the figures in Figure 5, which are taken from the
U.S.-Mexico Border Ten-Year Outlook Environmental Infrastructure Funding Projections, 1999, North American Development Bank.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESOURCE COMMITMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS
1
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
have been appropriated. For example, the $50 million (1999) for
water construction could be used only for designing and building
drinking-water and wastewater projects. Once those projects have
been completed, the funds cannot be used to operate and main-
tain the water projects themselves.
BBZEuESEB^SiESBI Although the bulk of funding for the bor-
der is for water infrastructure grants, EPA carries out activities in
other areas (see Figure 3). After water activities, air- and waste-
related activities receive the most funding. All other areas are
combined in Figure 4. Clearly, water funding predominates; there
appears to be a downward trend over the period 1994 to 2000,
as well. Much of the non-water-related funding is also in the form
of state and tribal assistance grants; typically, the administration
of funding is carried out by governments (or organizations, in the
case of the BECC and NADB) other than the federal government.
These resources, again, are not fungible; that is, they are desig-
nated appropriations for a specific purpose, often a media-spe-
cific purpose, and cannot be substituted or transferred for use
elsewhere. When the non-water areas are considered separate-
ly from water-related projects, the trend is still somewhat erratic,
with the overall total ranging from $20 to $25 million, and with
individual components varying from year to year.
WATER FUNDING
While water funding has been described
above, the funds' large proportion of EPA resources merit mention
of two additional points. First, water grants are used to leverage,
or generate, additional funds from other sources—either other grants
or private capital, or some combination of the two.
Second, the need to address existing and projected demand for
basic infrastructure is immense. In 1999, NADB prepared a 10-year
forecast of needs, largely for its core water-related functional areas.
Figure 5 contrasts the downward trend in grant funds with the steady
demand forecast by the NADB study.
Functional Areas by Year
IB Water (OW)
FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 Pres99 • Waste (OSWER)
D non-Air/Water/Waste
[Pies are proportional to EPA border total for that year]
FY = Fiscal year ••!!•>{
OW,= Office of Water I;I:
OAR = Office of Air and Radiation,
Figure 3\
By Functional Area, with Water Removed
30
25
20
15
El non-Air/Water/Waste
H Waste (OSWER)
• Air (OAR)
FY i Fiscal year • ' f N!''. i '• f f •;V'. K ' »•';;if ft7-p ','•
OAR = Office of Air and Radial, iqri : i •. [: '-.(• '•"t.xWX. ''.';.:,",'!•
OSWER = Office of Solid Waste! afjtf ElfiBrSSncy Response;:;
Figure 4
Border Water Construction Funds
and Needs Projection
Colon/as (U.S. only)
EPA border construction grants
(U.S./Mexioo)
NADB projection of
grant needs
FY = Fiscal year • ' • i'!\ '•;• !:
NADB = North American Development .
Figure 5
The projected demand described above with regard to infra-
structure is to some degree representative of other growing needs
of the border and its communities, which face serious demand
for services and programs besides infrastructure works. While EPA's resources are considerable, the population is large
and growing. Conservative estimates indicate that the border population will double over the next 20 years. Govern-
ments, the private sector, and other organizations continue to face a challenge in bringing adequate resources to bear
to address border concerns.
-------
•*•••* - E » ,
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 6
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BORDER LIAISON OFFICES: OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR
To achieve the public outreach and involvement objectives of the Border XXI Program, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) has established border liaison offices to provide environmental information to local communi-
ties and governments, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and border residents. Outreach spe-
cialists in each office are available to answer questions, obtain responses, and provide a number of other types of
outreach services and resources to border stakeholders.
tut-1
M\
There are two EPA border liaison offices, one in San Diego, California and one in El Paso, Texas. The San Diego
Border Office (SDBO) is staffed by a director, two outreach specialists, an environmental justice specialist, and a
tribal liaison. The El Paso Border Office (EPBO) staff consists of a director and three outreach specialists. Staff
members from the EPBO also staff a "satellite" office in Brownsville, Texas, once a month.
Some of the services provided by the SDBO and EPBO are described below.
fit
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTERS
The border offices have established public information centers to facilitate access
to environmental information for border communities. The centers provide information about the Border XXI Pro-
gram, environmental and technical reports, border newspaper archives, English translations of Mexican environmental
laws, and information about U.S. environmental laws and regulations and environmental grant opportunities. The
public information centers also have public computer workstations with Internet access. In addition, Border XXI
documents have been supplied to more than 60 repositories located in communities throughout the border region.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
The EPBO and SDBO have hosted more than 50 open houses since the inception of the
Border XXI Program. For some open houses, a speaker from the community has addressed an individual topic and
participated in a discussion with the audience. At other open houses, the progress of the Border XXI workgroups
is discussed, and feedback is solicited from border stakeholders on workgroup projects and other Border XXI
activities. The open house events serve as a means for border communities to learn more about a particular bor-
der environmental issue and for EPA staff to gain a better understanding of the concerns and desires of the com-
munity.
In addition, the SDBO has conducted four grant-writing workshops, which notify communities of EPA environmen-
tal grant opportunities and provide training to community members to better prepare them to complete the EPA
grant application process.
Border office staff members frequently speak at environmental conferences and meetings of community groups on
a broad range of environmental topics, as well as on the Border XXI Program.
8*1
BORDER XXI FACT SHEETS
To provide readily accessible information on the Border XXI Program, public informa-
tion fact sheets in English and Spanish have been developed and distributed. In addition to providing details about
the goals, structure, and activities of each of the nine workgroups, fact,sheets are available on the following top-
ics: (1) Border XXI Program overview; (2) the EPA border liaison offices; (3) the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB); and (4) the Geographic Information Sys-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BORDER LIASON OFFICES: OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR
1
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
tern (GIS) Subworkgoup. Each of the fact sheets provides an overview of the topic, a brief description of how the
topic is related to the Border XXI Program, and names and telephone numbers of contacts in both the United States
and Mexico. The fact sheets are available from both border offices and on the Border XXI Program web site at
www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder.
Through a cooperative agreement with ARTScorpsLA, a 50-minute bilingual education video
has been developed to provide an overview of the Border XXI Program and some of the key issues confronting bor-
der communities. The video is an interlocking series of vignettes; each emphasizes important themes and ideas
through pictures, text, and individual voices. The video has been distributed to border libraries, Border XXI repos-
itories, public access television stations, and other organizations along the border. The public can contact the bor-
der offices at 800-334-0741 for more information and a copy of the video.
BORDER XXI VIDEO
OUTREACH ON SPECIFIC ISSUES
The SDBO has participated with other EPA and International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC) staff to provide opportunities for the local community to dialogue with representatives from thej
two federal entities, as well as from the City of San Diego, and to receive progress reports regarding the planning,
design, and construction of the San Diego International Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) and the outfall. These
collaborative efforts have included: (1) convening public monthly meetings since 1995; (2) publishing and distribut-:
ing bilingual fact sheets; (3) publishing and distributing a draft and a final environmental impact reports; and (4) pre-
senting information on the IWTP to local city and county officials. ;
The EPBO is involved in a number of activities related to air quality management in the Paso del Norte air basin,;
an area comprising Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua; El Paso, Texas; and Dona Ana County, New Mexico. The EPBO alsoi
has been a participant in the Paso del Norte Clean Air Partnership, a multi-stakeholder group that organizes com-
munity air quality awareness programs. The group established the first binational Ozone Action Day Program, which
provides timely information to the community about the potential impacts of ozone pollution and encourages Paso
del Norte residents to protect themselves from ozone exposure and to take actions to reduce pollution. The Paso
del Norte Ozone Map, developed under a cooperative agreement between the EPA and Austin College, and pro-i
duced daily by the University of Texas, El Paso, is an important public education tool as part of the Ozone Action
Day Program. The EPA has also supported development of bilingual Internet web sites for the Paso del Norte Ozone
Map (www.ozonemap.org) and Clean Air Partnership web site (www.bordercleanair.org).
In addition, the EPBO has been involved with the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) for the Improvement of Air Qual-j
ity in the Paso del Norte Air Basin. The JAC was established through Appendix I of Annex V to the La Paz Agree-,
ment as an advisory committee to the Border XXI Air Work Group to recommend actions to manage air quality in
the binational region. The EPBO played a coordination role in the development of the JAC's strategic plan. The;
plan documents 26 priority projects identified from the more than 100 initially proposed to improve air quality in the
Paso del Norte region. For more details on the JAC, please refer to the Air Workgroup chapter in this report.
OUTREACH TO INDUSTRY
The EPA border liaison offices have conducted several outreach activities to industry
In the border region. More specifically, the border liaison offices have:
Provided Border XXI Program information to border industries and industry associations, through mass
mailings, public meetings, listservs, meetings with industry representatives, and booths at seminars and
conferences.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Pro5ress Report 1996-2000
• Assisted in the coordination of seminars and workshops.
• Participated in industry seminars and workshops offered by the EPA and Mexico's Secretarfa del Medio
Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca (SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources,
and Fisheries).
• Coordinated and participated in environmental education activities with the industry sector.
• Provided presentations to industry groups and organizations.
In addition to these specific activities, the EPA border liaison offices are available to respond to general questions
and requests for assistance, as needed. Details about additional activities related to industry outreach can be found
in the Pollution Prevention Workgroup chapter in this report.
-------
*)««
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 7
ECONOMIC RESOURCES FROM MEXICO APPLIED TO BORDER XXI1
As illustrated throughout the document, a principal limiting factor confronted by Mexico was the lack of allocated fund-
ing for the Border XXI Program. All agencies, except for the Comision National del Agua (CNA, or National Water
Commission), which receives annual funding invested specifically for the border region, used their own budgets.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned and considering that the next phase of the program may have its own funding, the
following budget quantification exercise was made by various institutions that took part in the program from 1997 to 2000.
The funds exhibited in this exercise are divided into two categories, in accordance with their Classification by Purpose
of Expense, and updated by the Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito Publico (Treasury Ministry) in May 1992:
The term Current Expenditures refers to disbursements of goods, services, and other miscellaneous expenditures incurred
by federal government agencies to pay for general and operational costs related to such expenses as wages and ben-
efits; travel and per diem expenses; administrative and operational expenses; office expenses; publications; chemicals;
fuel; and other expenses.
The term Capital Expenditures refers to all disbursements in goods, services, and other miscellaneous costs intended
to increase the capacity of administrative or productive operations of the federal government agencies, which are reflect-
ed in an increase of their capital or the aggregate of their fixed assets, including: technology equipment; construction
equipment; sundry equipment and machinery; vehicles; laboratory equipment; research, seminar workshops, and con-
sultations; public works; and more.1
The figure below shows the estimated amount of funds budgeted for the Border XXI Program annually during the
1997-2000 period. For 2000, the amount represents the budgeted funds.
$500,000.00
$400,000.00
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
FUNDS DESTINED FOR BORDER XXI
(in thousands of pesos)
B Total
• Capital
H Current
1997
1998
1999
2000
YEAR
As can be seen, the capital expense
component is much larger than the
current expense component, reflect-
ing the investments that CNA and
the states and municipalities made
within the water group.
The figure on the following page
shows the funds that were applied
for each Border XXI component,
divided according to the two aforementioned categories, with an additional heading for institution-building that has been
operated by the Institute National Ecoiogfa (INE, or National Institute of Ecology) within the framework of the North-
ern Border Environmental Program. Said program represents an environmental project for the region, based on a cred-
it by the World Bank, and by federal, state and municipal funds functioning as a credit counterpart. Some of the activ-
ities financed with these funds include: personnel training, provision of equipment for the control and prevention of
environmental pollution, and specific studies for the development of an environmental management strategy.
1 All figures shown, with the exception of the components pertaining to Capital Expense of the Water and Institution-Building Group, have been calculated
specifically for this exercise and do not have official validity.
ECONOMIC RESOURCES FROM MEXICO APPLIED TO BORDER XXI
1
— , , „ ~ ^ v , -, ,,5 ? . , . , ^ .,,v, ^
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY WORK GROUP AND PAFN **
OF BORDER XXI 1997-2000
(THOUSANDS OF PESOS)
Government Agency
INE
Ministry of Health
INE
INE
CNA-
States
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
LIST OF FUNDS PROVIDED BY EACH WORKING GROUP
1997
1998
1999
2000
j AIR
j CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
I COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
] ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
j ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
| HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
I NATURAL RESOURCES
I POLLUTION PREVENTION
I WATER
-------
* i
W « - \, ^S '
$ si?
-------
•*-* S- a *i« .ite fr&
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 8
BORDER COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING: GRANTS,
INFORMATION SHARING, AND OTHER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Mechanisms for empowering local communities and building local capacity can take several forms, including edu-
cation/outreach, funding, technical assistance, and training. Key factors in community empowerment and improved
capacity are access to accurate, credible, and timely information and participation in the decision making process.
Since the inception of the Border XXI Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sought to use
a number of mechanisms and fora for involving and empowering local community residents; nongovernmental organ-
izations; and tribal, state, and local governments. Since 1994, extensive outreach efforts have been underway by
the Border Liaison Offices to help inform the border public about the various opportunities for their participation in
the Border XXI Program. These are described in Chapter 2 and in Appendix 6 of the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI
Progress Report 1996-2000.
Activities of the Environmental Information Resources Workgroup have provided multiple venues for dissemination
of accurate and timely information, in both English and Spanish, including postings on the Border XXI web site, and
the publication of flyers and fact sheets. These are described in the Environmental Information Resources chapter
and in Appendix 6 of this report. In addition, EPA has provided resources and technical assistance to communities,
nongovernmental organizations, and tribal governments, facilitating the development of extensive environmental edu-
cation programs, promotores programs, community health projects, model recycling projects, and other efforts to
serve the communities in the border region. A list of the U.S.-Mexico Border Community Grants awarded to com-
munities in 1995 and 1997 is provided in this appendix.
Some specific examples of community empowerment and capacity-building assistance are:
• $200,000 provided in 1999 to Naco, Arizona, for development of a Brownfields project for the
redevelopment of a 260-acre agro-business site into a business center.
• $40,000 in 1999 for expansion of the Tijuana Children's Lead Prevention Program to analyze lead
exposure in children living in Co/on/a Chilpancingo, near the Metales y Derivados abandoned lead
smelter. Part of the program includes case management for children with blood lead levels found
to be over 11 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl), including education, outreach, and pottery exchange.
Case management is performed by Tijuana community health representatives who are funded and
trained as part of this project.
• $135,000 in 1998 for the Nogales Children's Health Initiative for community outreach and education
to reduce exposure to air toxics and improve the respiratory health of children in Nogales, Arizona.
A local team composed of health professionals, city and county school officials, business represen-
tatives, members of citizens groups and clubs, academics, and parents, was funded to work with
775 families.
Saas I
BORDER COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING: GRANTS, INFORMATION SHARING, AND OTHER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
• $19,000 in 1999 to implement a lead awareness program in Nogales, Arizona, spearheaded by Healthy
Families, an outreach program that provides information to families on health factors that can improve
the environment in the home. The program is part of the Child and Family Resources Office, which
services communities in southeast Arizona. i
• $40,000 in 1997 to Project Concern for a demonstration project in 10 co/on/as in Tijuana designed
to increase community understanding of environmental sanitation, demonstrate simple, low-cost, tech-
niques for water storage, and improve hygiene.
The EPA grants awarded to border communities in 1995 and 1997 are summarized below. Additional grants were
awarded in 2000. . ;
1995 BORDER COMMUNITY GRANTS |
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
Cochise County-Northeast
Sonora Planning Project
Ambos Nogales
Environmental Action Plan
Building a Kumeyaay
Environmental Strategy
Cochise County, Arizona
Nogales, Arizona;
Nogales, Sonora
Campo, California;
Baja California
Environmental Priorities,
Needs, and Solutions in
the San Diego-Tijuana Region
Mariposa Community
Health Center
San Diego-Tijuana
Border Region
Nogales, Arizona;
Nogales, Sonora
SUMMARY
Addressed hazard prevention and reduction •
through binational training of community |
planners. Included stakeholder participation ;
in reviewing the county land use plan. |
Developed a public outreach program and
established an environmental information [
center in Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales
Sonora.
Developed of a water quality control plan ,
to measure water quality trends, as well as :
a cross-border planning mechanism to 1
enhance long-range environmental protection
of the natural resources on Kumeyaay/Kumiai
Community reservation lands.
Established a proactive environmental
planning process through public outreach.
An Environmental Task Force was created,
which included members of government and
environmental communities.
Focused on reducing, reusing, and recycling
household solid waste, including hazardous
waste. Designed household solid waste ;
program in Nogales-Nogales.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
SUMMARY
Developing an
Environmental Strategy for
the Western Sonoran Desert
Tijuana River Watershed
Toxics Data Project
Environmental Plan of
Los Dos Laredos
AYUDA's Self Help
Community A.I.R.E. Project
EIP, City of Donna, Texas
Western Sonoran Desert;
U.S.-Mexico Border Region
Tijuana River Watershed
Laredo, Texas;
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
San Elizario, Texas
Donna, Texas
Ecological Baseline Model Columbus, New Mexico;
for the U.S.-Mexico Border Palomas, Chihuahua
Environmental Cooperation Trans-Pecos region of
and Community Building Along West Texas
the Rio Grande
EIP for Southwest Webb
County, Texas
Southwest Webb County,
Texas; Laredo, Texas
Consisted of six workshops during which
participants gained an understanding of
their communities' relationship to the
western Sonoran Desert, exploring how
the desert contributes to their quality
of life and traditions.
Assisted the Tijuana River Watershed
Geographic Information System (GIS)
Project in identifying information sources of
toxics data required for GIS mapping.
Developed outreach materials and activities
to facilitate transborder dialogue.
Created a binational environmental plan
that addressed environmentally sensitive
issues between the sister cities.
Created a long range community action
environmental plan for the colonia area
that incorporated public input through
meetings, local campaigns, fairs, and a
special focus on youth activities.
Developed a long range environmental plan
that included public input and incorporation
of pollution prevention practices.
Established an ecological baseline
assessment in the two communities,
located approximately 70 miles west of
El Paso and Cuidad Juarez.
Incorporated pollution prevention and natural
resource conservation issues through range
management and multi-stakeholder
participation.
Developed an overall environmental
improvement plan for an area that includes
three large co/on/as.
iPI
sell
SBFSS.J
tee;
fir
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
1997 BORDER COMMUNITY GRANTS
PROJECT NAME
Fermin Calderon
Elementary Nature Trail
LOCATION
Del Rio, Texas;
Ciudad Acufia, Coahuila
Interagency Coordination, San Diego, California;
Technical Exchange, and Tijuana, Baja California
Chemical Emergency Response
Water Protection
and Hygiene Education
Indoor Air Awareness
Campaign
Tijuana, Baja California
El Paso, Texas
SUMMARY
Constructed a nature trail for educational
and public use at the Fermin Calderon
Elementary School.
Offered four different levels of training \
courses for firefighters and first responders
in how to respond to chemical spills
and other emergencies.
Increased understanding of environmental
sanitation, demonstrated techniques for
water storage and disinfection, and improved
hygiene-related behaviors.
Increased awareness of the risks associated
with indoor air pollutants and provided
education on prevention measures.
>Jj
"'liS f'
i
PROBEA: A Teacher
Training Model
Border Environmental
Resource Guide
San Diego County, California;
Tijuana, Baja California
California, Baja California;
Arizona, Sonora
Trained teachers in the principles of
environmental education.
Compiled and published a Resource Guide
on environmental resources and distributed
the guide to all interested border communi-
ties and organizations.
AMIGO
Arizona Border Region
Brought industries together to share
technologies that reduce waste and
pollution and increase profits, worker safety,
and health.
Colorado River Delta
Restoration
Nogales Community
Outreach
Baja California, Sonora
Nogales, Arizona;
Nogales, Sonora
Evaluated water quality and flows in the
Colorado River wetlands and assessed ;
wetlands and near-shore marine resources. .
Built community capacity for public outreach
and expanded community participation in
environmental and environmental health- :
related issues.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
PROJECT NAME
Rio Grande Watershed
Mobile Exhibit
Hidalgo and Cameron
counties, Texas
The grantee is producing a mobile exhibit
focused on the Rio Grande watershed. The
exhibit and associated materials will be
presented to elementary schools.
Borderplex Environmental
Center
Cameron, Hidalgo, and
Willacy counties, Texas;
Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Established a regional, binational education
environmental center available to the public,
which served as a gathering point for
environmental data and information.
Pollution Prevention
in Industrial Facilities
in Mexico and Texas
Agua para Beber
Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Webb County, Texas
Conducted an industrial source-reduction
training workshop. Participants included
environmental and community groups and
citizens living near one or more of the
chemical plants.
Trained field workers to educate low-income
residents on the safety of drinking water.
is
Environmental Management Border Regions of
for Border Businesses New Mexico and Texas
Improved the capabilities of border
businesses to comply with environmental
regulations in the United States and Mexico.
m
m
JSSK'I
Hal
tu.
I:
teE
-------
%m\'« V' ^? ?"» ^, ( lt, «VJ ,r ?
*r
-------
U.S. -Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 9
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TRIBAL ACTIVITIES
Region 9 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Region 9) is responsible for activities in California and
Arizona. EPA Region 9 been particularly active in: (1) addressing the environmental concerns of the indigenous tribes
located in the border area of this region; and (2) encouraging greater tribal participation in the U.S. -Mexico Border
XXI Program. Examples of EPA Region 9 support for the tribes include the following:
* In 1999, $170,000 was allocated to enhance tribal involvement in the Border XXI Program. The funds are
being used specifically to aid tribes in attending and participating in the nine Border XXI workgroup and
subworkgroup meetings. Of that $170,000, $65,000 will be allocated to the Tohono O'odham Nation to
hire a Border XXI coordinator. The remaining $105,000 will be given to two California tribes (grants yet to
be completed) to support outreach, including the publication of a newsletter, development of a web site,
and defrayment of travel costs to attend meetings.
• In 1998, $30,000 was made available through a grant to defray travel expenses for any tribal representa-
tive interested in attending a Border XXI workgroup meeting. The cost of travel was seen as being one of
the most formidable impediments to tribal participation.
• The San Diego Border Liaison Office (SDBO) has held two open sessions for tribes to provide partici-
pants with: (1) a brief overview of the history of the Border XXI Program and of current activities; (2) infor-
mation on environmental grants available to border tribes (described below); and (3) an opportunity to
exchange information. The first open house, held August 12, 1997 was attended by 31 tribal representa-
tives. At the second open house, held October 2, 1998, 33 tribal representatives from 14 border tribes
were in attendance.
• In August 1998, a border tribal outreach coordinator joined the SDBO team. The coordinator is responsi-
ble for (1) conducting outreach to border tribes on Border XXI meetings, events, and issues; (2) overseeing
grant projects awarded to border tribes; and (3) bridging the relationship between representatives of the
border tribes and EPA Region 9.
• In February 1 998, EPA sponsored the Conference of Native American Nations on NAFTA and U.S.-Mexico
Border Issues. Held in San Diego, California, the conference brought together more than 60 federal, state,
and tribal representatives to discuss the ongoing border environmental activities of the federal and state
agencies, environmental concerns of the border tribes, and funding and mechanisms for tribal involvement
in ongoing border activities.
In 1997, EPA Region 9 provided $25,000 in grant funding to the Inter-Tribal Council of Ari-
zona (ITCA) to assist tribes in addressing environmental issues identified in the 7996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Pro-
gram: Framework Document through the provision of travel and per diem costs. The ITCA will also assist tribal
governments in planning and developing policies to address specific environmental conditions precipitated by bor-
der activities.
GRANTS TO TRIBES
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
construction; two projects are under design; six projects are ready to start design; and nine projects are complet-|
ing the planning phase.
For more information on particular grants awarded to border tribes, please see the chapter of the U.S.-Mexico Border^
XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000 on the activities of the Water Workgroup.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 10
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ENSURING THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESPONSIVENESS AND INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE IN THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
Responding to a need to better integrate environmental justice into the
Border XXI Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a roundtable on environmental jus-
tice in the border region. The International Subcommittee of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) convened the meeting. The purpose of the roundtable was to initiate a dialogue among the diverse envi-
ronmental justice stakeholders in the border region and to hear firsthand about the concerns and priorities of res-
idents living in the border region.
As a result of the roundtable, EPA has enhanced outreach and increased efforts to better integrate environmental jus-
tice into border activities. EPA is also working to develop an environmental justice strategy for the entire border region.
WORKING WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES TO ENCOURAGE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE IN THEIR BORDER PROGRAMS
In an effort to encourage coordination between EPA and other federal
government agencies working along the U.S.-Mexico border, EPA helped establish the Federal Regional Council Bor-
der Committee. The border committee was created specifically to enhance interagency coordination and serve as
a venue for helping encourage integration of environmental justice into participating federal agency programs. Cur-
rently, only EPA Region 9 (California-Arizona region) has established a border committee; EPA Region 6 (Texas-New
Mexico region) is considering the creation of a federal regional council during 2000.
At its monthly meeting on September 15, 1999, the Federal Regional Council Border Committee recommended that
several actions be endorsed by the full Federal Regional Council, including: (1) construction of an interagency data
base on environment-related border projects and (2) identification of opportunities for conducting outreach and tech-
nical assistance to border communities to enhance the information those communities have available to them about
the availability of federal grants and programs. The Federal Regional Council Border Committee is supporting the
President's Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border by creating comple-
mentary programs and supporting the task force's objectives and strategies.
REDUCING RISK AND DISPROPORTIONATE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE TO MINORITY COMMUNITIES
IN THE U.S. BORDER REGION
Since a large percentage of the U.S. border area population is considered "minor-
ity" and at least 50 percent is considered below the U.S. federal poverty level, many of the projects initiated under
the umbrella of the Border XXI Program have served to reduce risk and disproportionate adverse exposure to minor-
ity, low-income communities. The largest contribution to that effort has been funds provided to the Border Envi-
ronment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB) for the construction
of water and wastewater and solid waste infrastructure. Many tribal and minority communities have benefited direct-
ly from construction of these facilities, and more will benefit in the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
1
-------
i J M ^ ( H ^ f U ^ dft^ ^^tf V11
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 11
COORDINATION PRINCIPLES
BETWEEN THE BORDER XXI NATIONAL COORDINATORS
AND THE U.S. AND MEXICAN BORDER STATES AND U.S. TRIBES
FOR THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
Ensenada, Baja California
May 13, 1999
•pwel
itesl
The Border XXI Framework Document of 1996 recognizes that active participation of border states and tribes is cen-
tral to the implementation of the Border XXI Program.
Under Article 9 of the La Paz Agreement, the Border XXI National Coordinators will implement this document with
their respective border states and the United States border tribes, in accordance with the each country's laws and
regulations.
In order to implement this document and whereas:
The mission of the Border XXI Program is to achieve a clean environment and protect public health and natural
resources in the U.S.-Mexico border region, and the Border XXI Framework Document was developed to express
certain concepts, goals, and understandings among participating stakeholders;
The environmental directors of the ten border states, during their third annual retreat, submitted a joint proposal to
the National Coordinators of the Border XXI Program expressing their opinion on the Program's implementation
process and offering recommendations for improving state participation in the Program, including developing sys-
tematic, standard organizational procedures to facilitate state participation;
The National Coordinators indicated support for the border states to play a more active role as participants in the
Border XXI Program: in Mexico, officials from SEMARNAP and the six Mexican border states met three times, and
on July 17, 1998, in Saltillo, Coahuila, agreed to specific procedures for coordination, such as establishing a list of
issues to analyse together; in addition, the Mexican National Coordinator provided a written response to the Mex-
ican states on October 13, 1998; in the United States, the Regional Administrator of EPA's Region 6 office, on behalf
of the U.S. National Coordinator, addressed the concerns of the U.S. states at the Ten States meeting on October
20, 1998, and subsequently confirmed EPA's response in a letter to the U.S. states on December 7, 1998 (see
attachments);
U.S. Indian Tribes are sovereign nations, and all Indian communities in the border area have a long tradition of stew-
ardship of the border region, which calls for their active participation in the Border XXI Program, workgroups, and pi
subworkgroups:
State participation in border environmental programs requires an accelerated process of decentralization of envi-
ronmental management, and one of the principal objectives of Border XXI is decentralization;
COORDINATION PRINCIPLES BETWEEN THE BORDER XXI NATIONAL COORDINATORS AND THE U.S. AND MEXICAN BORDER STATES AND U.S. TRIBES FOR THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
1
til
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The Signatories recognize the benefits and importance of coordinating their efforts in developing and implementing
the Border XXI Program, within their respective jurisdictions;
Therefore, the following principles of coordination are established:
1. The Signatories to these Coordination Protocols are the Border XXI National Coordinators, the par-
ticipating agencies of the Mexican and U.S. border states and the U.S. border tribes.
2. The Signatories agree to actively participate in Border XXI, within their respective jurisdictions, work-
ing together to establish goals and objectives, identify activities, and secure the necessary resources
to meet those goals, objectives, and activities; agreeing on dates and agendas for important meet-
ings; and reporting and measuring the outcomes of those goals, objectives, and activities.
3. The Signatories, including federal, state, and Tribal representatives, have the same opportunity and
responsibility to serve as members of workgroups and co-chairs of subworkgroups.
4. Each Signatory, through Border XXI workgroup and subworkgroup members, shall seek and facilitate
meaningful participation of individuals, groups, and communities that have requested an opportuni-
ty to participate.
5. To promote progress towards workgroup and subworkgroup objectives, each Signatory, through Bor-
der XXI workgroup and subworkgroup members, shall commit to frequent and consistent communi-
cation within and between workgroups, and subworkgroups; providing regular updates on critical and
pending issues of concern; and appointing contact persons for coordination and communication for
the Border XXI workgroups.
6. Recognizing the unique cultural and technical differences in methods of communication that exist
among members, the National Coordinators shall provide written translation of pre-meeting docu-
ments and simultaneous interpretation in English and Spanish for the annual National Coordinators'
Meeting and workgroup meetings; in addition, EPA and SEMARNAP, working together with the states,
shall endeavor to provide written translation of pre-meeting documents and simultaneous interpreta-
tion during subworkgroup meetings.
7. The Signatories shall ensure that each Border XXI workgroup and subworkgroup meets regularly, with
each meeting announced in as timely a fashion as possible (at least one month in advance), and
each workgroup and subworkgroup shall have a draft agenda for each meeting distributed to work-
group and/or subworkgroup participants at least two weeks prior to a meeting.
8. EPA and SEMARNAP, the National Coordinators of Border XXI, shall create an email address list of
Border XXI contacts.
9. Workgroup and subworkgroup co-chairs shall provide timely notice of meetings; give prompt notice
of events and other relevant activities taking place within border communities; provide regular updates
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
on commitments made during workgroup and subworkgroup meetings; and prepare and distribute
meeting minutes and/or summaries.
10. The Signatories shall provide to each other and to interested individuals, groups and communities,
timely notice of public meetings, workshops, and other relevant events taking place within border
communities.
11. The Signatories shall work together to identify and secure funds to support travel and per diem
expenses of participants as required.
12. SEMARNAP and EPA shall announce the time and location of the Border XXI Program National Coor-
dinators Meeting at least two months in advance.
These Coordination Principles do not exclude the participation of other entities in either country.
NATIONAL COORDII
6
Samaniego Leyva Fecha
frdinadora de Asuntos Internacionales
Dr. William A. Nitze
Assistant Administrator
Office of International Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
7 7
Date
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
Gregg A. Cooke
Region 6
Marcus
Region 9
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES:
ARIZONA
Jacqueline E. Schafer J?
Director
Arizona Department of Environmental Protection
Date
BAJA CALIFORNIA
M.C. Adolfo Gonzalez Calvillo
Director General de Ecologfa
Direcci6n General de Ecologfa
Fecha
CALIFORNIA
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary for Environmental Protection
California Environmental Protection Agency
Date
CHIHUAHUA
Ing. Jos§ Antonio Cervantes Gurrola
Director de Ecologfa
Secretarfa de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologfa
Fecha
COAHUILA
Dr. Rodolfo Garza Gutierrez
Director General de Ecologfa
Secretarfa de Desarrollo Social
7,
fecha
«T " " *
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ftt
NEW MEXICO
Peter Maggiore
Cabinet Secretary
New Mexico Environmental Department
NUEVO LEON
Ing. Julian de la Garza Castro
Subsecretario
Subsecretarfa de Ecologfa
f /
Fecha
SONORA
Arq. Luisa Maria Gutierrez
Directora de Ecologfa
Direccion de Normatividad Ecologica
TAMAULIPAS
Ing. Jorge Fernandez Villareal
Director General Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente
Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologfa
TEXAS
R.B. "Ralph" Marquez
Commissioner
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Fecha
Fecha
Date
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
UNITED ! STATES TRIBES
AGUA CALIENTE
B A R O N A
BARO-LONG
C A H U I L L A
C A M P O
C O C O PA H
C U YA PA IP E
NAJA AND COSMIT
J A M U L
K I C K A P O O
LA J O L L A
LA P O S TA
LOS COYOTES
MANZANITA
MESA GRANDE
PA L A
P A U M A
P A S C U A YA Q U
PECHANGA
Q U E C H A N
R A M O N A
R I N C O N
SAN PAS Q U A L
SANTA YSABEL
S Y C U A N
TOHONO O'ODHAM
TORRES-MARTINEZ
VI E J AS
YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO
T^^
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 12
CLEAN WATER IN HOMES
IN BORDER AREA MUNICIPALITIES PROGRAM
OJINAGA, CHIHUAHUA
Following is a summary report on the Clean Water in Homes in Border Municipalities Program, the full results of
which are available from the agencies that operate the project. A list of program contacts is provided at the end
of this summary.
£==-.
BACKGROUND
The Clean Water in Homes Program was initiated in April 1991, at the request of the Mexican gov-
ernment, to provide clean water to all of the country's communities. Based on the definition of minimum standards
of quality, wastewater treatment, and disposal, the program works to guarantee a volume and quality of water suit-
able for different uses: human consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial and recreational use. The Comision
National del Agua (CNA, or National Water Commission and the Secretaria de Salud (SSA, or Secretariat of Health
jointly participate in the implementation and development of the program.
The program succeeded in substantially reducing the incidence of gastrointestinal illnesses, particularly cholera, in
Mexico. A gradual decrease in reported incidences of cholera was achieved over time, from 16,430 cases in 1995
to 2,359 cases in 1997, and only 9 cases confirmed in 1999.
In 1997, the CNA and the SSA implemented the Clean Water Program in the states of Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Yucatan
to avoid a resurgence of gastrointestinal illnesses. In highly impoverished areas, cases of cholera and elevated mor-
tality rates as a result of diarrhea-related illnesses were being reported.
CLEAN WATER IN HOMES IN BORDER MUNICIPALITIES PROGRAM
The Clean Water in Homes in Border Municipalities
Program came about as a proposal put forth by the Water and Environmental Health workgroups of the U.S. Bor-
der XXI Program. The proposal gained the support of the National Coordinators of that program at their bination-
al meeting in San Diego, California in March 1998.
The Clean Water in Homes in Border Municipalities Program began in July 1998 in the state of Chihuahua. The
agencies jointly participating in the program are the main offices and state-level offices of the SSA, the Secretaria
del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca, (SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources,
and Fisheries), CNA, the Fundacion de Mexico-Estados Unidos para la Ciencia, (FUMEC, or Mexico-United States
Foundation for Science) at the state and municipal authority level, and community representatives. The North Amer-
ican Development Bank (NADB) also participates in the program.
The program is similar to that of the Clean Water Program. It focuses on basic sanitation and environmental edu-
cation in border-area municipalities in Mexico. In particular, the program targets municipalities characterized by rural
communities with elevated mortality indices related to gastrointestinal illnesses. The program also focuses on munici-
palities with deficient or nonexistent water supply and basic sanitation infrastructure. In addition, the program con-
siders municipalities that have no short-term plans to provide funds for the creation of infrastructure to alleviate
such problems.
«S5
m
m\
m
CLEAN WATER IN HOMES IN BORDER AREA MUNICIPALITIES PROGRAM
1
4MH
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
OVERALL OBJECTIVE
The overall objective of the program is to reduce morbidity and mortality indices attributa-
ble to gastrointestinal infections in the northern border area of Mexico through: (1) improvement of water quality
(both at the level of water supply systems and at the residential level); (2) sanitary protection of water sources; (3)
promotion of disinfecting techniques; (4) promotion of appropriate waste disposal techniques; (5) promotion of the |
hygienic handling of food; (6) conduct of community discussions; and (7) application of simple actions to foster:
basic sanitation in schools.
STRATEGIES
Through the use of a family questionnaire, evaluate practices and attitudes of the population in relation to
basic sanitation.
Gather drinking water samples to determine bacteriological quality.
Promote basic sanitation practices in communities and schools by holding discussion sessions, showing
the video series "Los Consejos de Dona Lupita" and distributing brochures.1
Promote the use of potable water disinfecting techniques, supported by the distribution of bottles of
colloidal silver to households.
Through the use of surveys, determine awareness of colloidal silver as a household water disinfectant.
Evaluate sanitary water supply sources and systems.
Evaluate waste and wastewater disposal sites.
Examine water quality through the physicochemical and bacteriological characterization of water to be
used for human consumption.
Develop an integral, basic sanitation diagnosis for communities, including proposed solutions to specific
sanitation problems.
Evaluate the program's effectiveness.
DEVELOPMENT
milltltm^^^Imm To date, three stages of the program have been completed. During the first stage (August 31-
September 5, 1998), the program was implemented. During the second stage (April 19-23, 1999), the program's effi-
ciency was evaluated with respect to the use of colloidal silver as a household water disinfectant. The third stage
(September 27-30, 1999) was carried out to determine the impact of the activities that had been undertaken.
Throughout each stage, an average of 976 families (3,477 inhabitants) benefited directly from the application of the
program. However, interaction between rural and urban populations allowed extension of the program's benefits to
the municipality of Ojinaga's total population of 20,100.
' Los Conse/os de Dona Lupita Is a series of 12 videos, each 3 minutes long to promote essential aspects of basic sanitatfon. j
2
HMMjW,:^,:-t$^
-------
U,S,-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Following are the results of the surveys conducted in both rural locales and urban neighborhoods dur-
ing the first and third stages of the program:
1. A 6 percent reduction in reported cases of diarrhea-related illnesses. This figure will be validated when local
statistics and the official annual morbidity rates from the SSA are published.
40
35-
30-
25-
20-
15-
10-
5-
0
• Rural
a Urban
H General
16.4
13.9
12.3
First Stage
Third Stage
2. A 27 percent increase in the practice of disinfecting potable water with colloidal silver as the most com-
monly used method (38 percent in the third stage).
No Treatment
Bottled Water
Chlorinated
Boil
H Colloidal Silver
B
First Stage
Second Stage
Third Stage
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
3. A 31 percent increase in the practice of disinfecting raw vegetables.
4. An 18 percent increase in the amount of produce fit for human consumption.
Potable
Nonpotable
E. Coll detected
First Stage
Second Stage
Third Stage
The most significant changes occurred in rural areas. In the initial stages of the program, overall coliform was
detected in 100 percent of the samples requested, while E. coli. was detected in 78 percent of the samples. More
recently, in the third stage, overall coliform was detected in 82 percent of the samples, and E. coli. in only 37 perf
cent of the samples.
The program effectively educated both the population and municipal and state authorities on the importance of basic
sanitation as a health benefit. As a result of funding, certain infrastructure projects accelerated: (1) sanitary land-
fill operations began in the city of Ojinaga, Chihuahua; (2) a detailed design was prepared for a wastewater treat-
ment plant; and (3) the oxidation basin was enlarged to prevent and control water contamination. In addition, the
water supply systems for Barrio de los Montoya and Valverde were renovated; a new system, now in operation,
was built for La Colmena; and a sewage program was implemented in Valverde. ;
1 f
In each stage of the program, pertinent recommendations were made to the municipal authorities and local water
officials in the various areas visited. The immediate recommendations to the proper authorities demonstrate the
potential success of the program before it is completed.
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION
Before and during its implementation, the program was evaluated by the Fundacion dp
M6xico-Estados Unidos para la Ciencia, (FUMEC, or Mexico-United States Foundation for Science). The surveys
were carried out in four stages to identify the conditions related to the population's basic sanitation (water service,
management of potable water, knowledge about disinfectants for water and vegetables, disposal of excreta, and the
incidence of diarrhea-related illnesses). The results coincided with the results of a survey taken by the program's
operating personnel.
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
The most notable results, according to the verbal information furnished by the population interviewed between the
first and the fourth survey stages, were:
1. In general terms, it can be said that the incidence of gastrointestinal illnesses dropped from 21 percent (before
the program's, implementation) to 6 percent, as of the fourth survey stage.
2. With respect to the population's knowledge about water disinfectants, 41 percent of the population said they
knew about some disinfectant before the program's implementation, while that proportion increased by 15
percent by the time of the last evaluation.
3. In relation to persons practicing water disinfection, a general increase of 20 percent was observed between
the evaluation made before implementation of the program and the fourth evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
During its short test period, the Clean Water in Homes in Border Area Municipalities program
proved to be an effective instrument for reducing gastrointestinal illness indices among the population, through inte-
gral sanitation actions and health education.
Satisfactory results were achieved in a short time and at relatively low cost by (1) addressing issues dealing with
potable water and food disinfection, (2) promoting awareness of basic sanitation, and (3) making an effort to height-
en consciousness of these matters among municipal authorities.
The program also demonstrated the merits of inter-institutional cooperation among the various agencies in all lev-
els of Mexico's government, as well as with private foundations and financial institutions.
The information presented above demonstrates the program's feasibility as an instrument in meeting sanitation needs
in disadvantaged communities in the Mexican border region, especially in rural communities. It is, therefore, reason-
able to suggest that the program be established as a continuing and committed project in a new Border XXI phase
starting in 2001. Doing so will allow extension of the program to other communities in Mexico's border region.
ssel
8*1
Sit
if1
-------
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 13
NON-BINATIONAL BORDER ACTIVITIES - MEXICO
Mexico's Comision Nacional de Agua (CNA, or National Water Commission) has developed potable water, sewer,
and sanitation services master plans for Ensenada, Tecate, Mexicali, Puerto Penasco, Nogales, Piedras Negras,
Acufia, Matamoros, Reynosa, and Nuevo Laredo.
Digital cartography was prepared for the cities of Mexicali, San Luis Rio Colorado, Naco, Agua Prieta, Cananea,
Santa Ana, Magdalena de Kino, and Imuris and part of the Santa Cruz River, Ojinaga, Nueva Ciudad Guerrero, Mier,
Miguel Aleman, Valle Hermoso, Camargo, Dfaz Ordaz, and Nuevo Progreso.
Information from surveying and mapping studies of hydraulic networks was integrated into geographic information
systems for the cities of Santa Ana, Magdalena de Kino, and Imuris, as well as Ojinaga, Nueva Ciudad Guerrero,
Miguel Aleman, and Mier.
In Ensenada, with support from federal government through the CNA, the state government of Baja California and
the state Public Services Commission developed a matrix of sanitation projects, including a new wastewater treat-
ment plant, El Naranjo. Ensenada now has the capacity to treat 100 percent of its wastewater.
The Immediate Works Program in Tamaulipas and Coahuila consisted of the rehabilitation of potable water and sewer
systems.
NON-BINATIONAL BORDER ACTIVITIES - MEXICO
1
I I » \ \ \ 4 \ t
-------
w M ^Jf *
\ \
.«»-<>
US? M*
, ' " " J V,
« '!iS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
APPENDIX 14
SURFACE WATER QUALITY MAPS
SURFACE WATER QUALITY MAPS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
A
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
\ ^\, <
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
r
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
10
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
-------
•V ^ ^
( I
* \ i
"Si
* I
^
V
* • ,v ,; ?
\ !) ^
fer-v.
i ^t^li'iiva*
\ f \
1 A\ w ^ ^^ f
-------
00,^ • „
' "
* *,*» ^ * j ' A ^ S **• ** "* ^
; -, V,/ ;C^
^^ -4- * * \ ,/^lAtuf^ "^^f S •* *
ssrs^^^.*'1^^-1 ^ ^ Vv^K'4^rt^'a! /', " \£i^^^i^W%ii^> lW
^ „ ^^.'"/x.f.S "v , ' »*'»>
^
' ^
-------
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
AIRS
ADEQ
ADHS
ADWR
ALA
AMIGO
AWQS
BECC
BEIF
BLM
BRAVO
BRD
BTA
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Water Resources
American Lung Association
Arizona-Mexico Green Organization
Aquifer Water Quality Standards (Arizona)
Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Border Environment Infrastructure Fund
Bureau of Land Management
Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observation Study
Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey
Border Trade Alliance
CAMEO
CAMx
GARB
CCDS
CDC
CEC
CECA
CEMA
CENSA
CESPM
CFC
CICA
CIR
CLAM
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
California Air Resources Board
Consejo Consultivo para el Desarrollo Sustentable, Regidn I
(Region I Advisory Council for Sustainable Development)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Criterios Ecologicos de Calidad de Agua
(Ecological Water Quality Criteria)
Centre para Estudios de Medio Ambiente
(Center for Environmental Studies at the Autonomous Univerisity
of Ciudad Juarez)
Centro National de Salud Ambiental
(National Center for Environmental Health)
Comision Estatal de Servicios Publicos de Mexican
(State Public Services Commission of Mexicali)
Chlorofluorocarbon
Centro de Information sobre la Contamination del Aire
(Information Center on Air Pollution)
Color infrared
Comite Local para Ayuda Mutua
(Local Committee for Mutual Assistance)
III
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
CPER
CNA
CO
CREAS
DCL
DICTUS
DOI
DOJ
DOQ
DISC
EE
EECC
EIP
EIR
EPBO
EPA
ERNS
ESA
FDA
FTE
FUMEC
FWS
FY
GIS
GNEB
HAZMAT
HAZTRAKS
Contingency Planning and Emergency Response (Workgroup)
Comision Nacional del Agua
(National Water Commission)
Carbon monoxide
Centro Regional de Estudios Ambientales
(Regional Center of Environmental Studies)
Designated commuter lane
Departamento de Investigaciones Cientfficas y Tecnologicas
de la Universidad de Sonora
(University of Sonora Department of Scientific and
Technological Research)
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Digital orthophoto quadrangles
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Environmental education
Environmental Education Council for the Californias
Environmental improvement plan
Environmental Information Resources (Workgroup)
El Paso Border Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Response Notification System
Endangered Species Act
Food and Drug Administration
Full-time equivalent
Fundacion Mexico-Estados Unidos para la Ciencia
(Mexico-United States Foundation for Science)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Fiscal year
Geographic information system
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Hazardous materials
Hazardous Waste Tracking System
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
HHS
HRSA
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
IAG
IBM
1BEP
IBWC
ICC
ICMA
IDP
IEA
IHS
Interagency agreement
International Business Machines Corporation
Integrated Border Environmental Plan
International Boundary and Water Commission
Interagency Coordinating Committee
International City/County Management Association
Institutional Development Program
Industrial Environmental Association
Indian Health Service
'f«:\
II
la,
IMADES
IMVEEC
INE
INEGI
INSP
ISEP
ITCA
ITESEM
IWTP
JAC
JCP
JRT
LOI
Institute del Media Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable
del Estado de Sonora
(State of Sonora Institute for the Environment and
Sustainable Development)
Imperial/Mexicali Valleys Environmental Education Coalition
Instituto Nacional de Ecologia
(National Institute of Ecology)
Instituto Nacional de Estadfstica, Geografia, e Informatica
(National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Information
Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica
(National Institute of Public Health)
International supplemental environmental project
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona
Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Super/ores de Monterrey
(Monterrey Institute of Technology and Advanced Studies)
International Wastewater Treatment Plant
Joint Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Air Quality
in the Paso del Norte Air Basin
Joint contingency plan
Joint response team
Letter of intent
fel
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
LGEEPA
ug/dl
{ig/nf
MBAS
MOU
NADB
NAFTA
NCEH
NEJAC
NGO
NMSU
NOX
NO2
NPDES
NFS
NRC
NSCCHC
NTD
Ley General del Equilibrio Ecologico y la Protection al Ambiente
(General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection)
Microgram per deciliter
Microgram per cubic meter
Methylene-blue-active substance
Memorandum of understanding
North American Development Bank
North American Free Trade Agreement
National Center for Environmental Health
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Nongovernmental organization
New Mexico State University
Oxides of nitrogen
Nitrogen dioxide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Parks Service
National Response Center
Northeast Sonora-Cochise County Health Council (Arizona)
Neural tube defect
03
OAR
OCED
ORD
OSWER
OW
PAFN
PAHO
Pb
PCE
PDAP
PLSS
PM-2.5
PM-10
Ozone
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Programa Ambiental de la Frontera Norte de Mexico
(Environmental Program for the Northern Border of Mexico)
Pan-American Health Organization
Lead
Tetrachloroethylene
Project Development Assistance Program
Public land survey system
Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
4
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
PMT
PPM
PROBEA
PROFEPA
Programa de manejo de tierras
(Land management program)
Part per million
Proyecto Bio-Regional de Education Ambiental
(Bio-Regional Environmental Education Project)
Procuradurfa Federal de Protection al Ambiente
(Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection)
RETC
REMEXMAR
REPAMAR
RGTSS
RMP
Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes
(Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry)
Reef Mexicana de Manejo Ambiental de Residues
(Mexican Network for Environmental Management of Wastes)
Red Pan-Americana de Manejo Ambiental de Residues
(Panamerican Network for Environmental Management of Wastes)
Rio Grande Toxic Substances Study
Risk management plan
it
ft
ai
m\
SAGAR
SARH
SANDAG
SBOO
SCERP
SCOS-NARSTO
Secretarfa de Agricultura, Ganaderfa, y Desarrollo Rural
(Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development)
Secretarfa de Agricultura y Recursos Hfdricos
(Secretariat of Agriculture and Water Resources)
San Diego Association of Governments
South Bay Ocean Outfall
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
Southern California Ozone Study, North American Research Strategy
for Tropospheric Ozone
i
i
ml
SCT
SDBO
SDWA
SECOFI
SEDESOL
SEMARNAP
Secretarfa de Comunicationes y Transposes
(Secretariat of Communication and Transportation)
San Diego Border Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Safe Drinking Water Act
Secretarfa de Comercio y Fomento Industrial
(Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development)
Secretarfa de Desarrollo Social
(Secretariat of Social Development)
Secretarfa de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca
(Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries)
I
-,. i
AOBONYM8 AND A fl B B I V I AT I 0 N 8
5
-------
«it i
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
SHOP
SIP
SIRREP
S02
SSA
STAR
SUIVE
TAPP
TDH
TEEM
TEIA
TNRCC
TSD
UAM
UMAS
USAID
USDA
USFS
USGS
USMCOC
UT
UTA
UTEP
VOC
WGA
Secretarfa de Hacienda y Credito Publico
(Secretariat of Treasury and Public Credit)
State implementation plan
Sistema de Rastreo de Residues Peligrosos
(Hazardous Waste Tracking System)
Sulfur dioxide
Secretarfa de Salud
(Secretariat of Health)
Spray Tehniques Analysis and Research Program
National Surveillance System (Mexico)
Transboundary Air Pollution Project
Texas Department of Health
Training and environmental education materials
Transboundary environmental impact assessment
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
Treatment, storage, and disposal facility
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana
Autonomous Metropolitan University
Unidad de manejo y aprovechamiento sustentable de la vida silvestre
(Unit of management and sustainable use of wildlife)
U.S. Agency for International Developent
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
University of Texas
University of Texas at Arlington
University of Texas at El Paso
Volatile organic compound
Western Governors' Association
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
-------
' "U.$.-Mexico1 Sortie* XXI Program; Progress Re'port 1996-2QGS0
^ * « »»• \* v vft '^\ ',»nut««
''»n?H^"t i*V., .. *
*f
r
«• ^
-------
« it ——t
/%
i '* ,
* A?
I -
(j.tt m A u
w-v ,* v?u ^ %v
: MMMHImrl,^ * w^^^afiJj-""^*"
•%i* s<* - r~. ^^!!||»ii«
,* • ^yr" * ,A v 1 , ^<« v*
»-%„ "*%U v >T ,.«««
v , \5j
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
NATIONAL COORDINATORS
UNITED STATES
William A. Nitze
Assistant Administrator
Office of International Activities
U.S. EPA (2650R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-6601
CONTACTS
Patrick Whelan
Coordinator
U.S.-Mexico Program
U.S. EPA (2650R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-6428
Fax: 202-565-2412
E-mail: whelan.pat@epa.gov
Sarah Sowell
Assistant Coordinator
U.S.-Mexico Program
U.S. EPA (2650R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-0145
Fax: 202-565-2412
E-mail: sowell.sarah@epa.gov
Larry Sperling
U.S. EPA Environmental Attache
U.S. Embassy
Paseo de la Reforma 305
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 06500
Phone: 525-209-9100 ext. 4595
Fax: 525-208-6541
E-mail: SperlingLI@state.gov
MEXICO
Jose Luis Samaniego Levya
Coordinador de Asuntos Internacionales
SEMARNAP
Anillo Perife"rico Sur 4209
Colonia Jardines en la Montafia
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 14210
Phone: 525-628-0650
Fax: 525-628-0653
CONTACT
Bike Duffing
SEMARNAP
Anillo Perife'rico Sur 4209
Colonia Jardines en la Montafia
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 14210
Phone: 525-628-0600 ext. 2041
Fax: 525-628-0653
E-mail: duffing@semarnap.gob.mx
DIHiOTOBY Of CONTACTS
1
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
Amy Zimpfer
Acting Division Director
Air Division
U.S. EPA Region 9 (A-l)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1219
Fax: 415-744-1077
E-mail: zimpfer.amy@epa.gov
CONTACTS
Gerardo Rios
U.S. EPA Region 9 (A-l)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1259
Fax: 415-744-1076
E-mail: rios.gerardo@epa.gov
Matthew Witosky
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6PD-L)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8015
Fax: 214-665-7263
E-mail: witosky.matthew@epa.gov
AIR WORKGROUP
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gesti6n
e Informacion Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolucion 1425, Nivel 8
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacidn Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, D.E C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3456
Fax: 525-624-3584
E-mail: afernand@ine.gob.mx
CONTACT
Dr. Victor Hugo Paramo
Director de Administracion
de la Calidad del Aire
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obreg6n
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3450
Fax: 525-624-3584 or -3469
E-mail: vparamo@ine.gob.mx
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
-------
. * , t i _V'%»n.A. t-jj-iu, *^ r
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
Jim Makris
U.S. EPA (5104A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-8600
Fax: 202-564-8211
E-mail: makris.jim@epa.gov
CONTACTS
Kim Jennings
U.S. EPA (5104A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-7998
Fax: 202-564-8211
E-mail: jennings.kim@epa.gov
Armando Santiago
U.S. EPA (5104A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-8002
Fax: 202-564-8333
E-mail: santiago.armando@epa.gov
Fendol Chiles
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RP)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2283
Fax: 214-665-7447
E-mail: chiles.fendol@epa.gov
Lauren "Vblpini
U.S. EPA Region 9 (SFD-1-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2333
Fax: 415-744-1917
E-mail: volpini.lauren@epa.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Eduardo Jimenez Lopez
Director General de Planeacidn
y Coordination
PROFEPA-SEMARNAP
Periferico Sur 5000, Piso 4
Colonia Insurgentes Cuicuilco
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 04530
Phone: 525-528-5482, -5483, or 666-9450
Fax: 525-666-9452
CONTACT y-'^.'
Ing. Jaime Garcia Sepulveda
Director de Clasificaci6n de Zonas
de Riesgo Atnbiental
PROFEPA-SEMARNAP
Periferico Sur 5000, Piso 4
Colonia Insurgentes Cuicuilco
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 04530
p|
SS***?-I
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
3
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
Thomas Maslany
Director
International Enforcement
and Compliance Division
U.S. EPA (2254A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4111
Fax: 202-564-0073
E-mail: maslany.thomas@epa.gov
CONTACTS
Tim Whitehouse
U.S. EPA (2254A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-2315
Fax: 202-564-0073
E-mail: whitehouse.tim@epa.gov
Bonnie S. Romo
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6EN-HS)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8323
Fax: 214-665-7264
E-mail: romo.bonnie@epa.gov
John Rothman
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1353
Fax: 415-744-1041
E-mail: rothman.john@epa.gov
Efrcn Ordofiez
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6RC-EW)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2181
Fax: 214-665-3177
E-mail: ordonez.efren@epa.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Lie. Miguel Angel Cancino Aguilar
Director General Jurfdico
PROFEPA-SEMARNAP
Boulevard El Pfpila No. 1
Tecamachalco, Naucalpan de Juarez
E.M. C.P. 53950
Phone: 525-589-0166
CONTACT
Lie. Myriam Gonzalez
Direccion Jurfdica
PROFEPA-SEMARNAP
Boulevard El Pfpila No. 1
Tecamachalco, Naucalpan de Juarez
E.M. C.P. 53950
Phone: 525-589-6505
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
4
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIRS
Hal Zenick
Associate Director for Health
U.S. EPA (MD-87)
National Health and Environmental Health
Effects Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-2283
Fax: 919-541-4201
E-mail: zenick.hal@epa.gov
Richard Walling
Director
Office of the Americas and Middle East
Office of International and Refugee Health
U.S. DHHS
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18-74
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301-443-4010
Fax: 301-443-4549
E-mail: rwalling@osophs.dhhs.gov
CONTACTS
Melissa Gonzales
U.S. EPA (MD-85A)
National Health and Environmental Health
Effects Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-966-7549
Fax: 919-966-7584
E-mail: gonzales.melissa@epa.gov
Virginia Gidi
Office of International and Refugee Health
U.S. DHHS
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18-74
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301-443-4010
Fax: 301-443-4549
E-mail: ggidi@osophs.dhhs.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIRS
Dr. Juan Rauda Esquivel
Director General de Salud Ambiental
Mariano Escobedo No. 366, Piso 3
Colonia Anzures
Delegaci6n Miguel Hidalgo
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-203-5011
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gestion
e Informacion Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolution 1425, Nivel 8
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegation Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3456
Fax: 525-624-3584
E-mail: afernand@ine.gob.mx
CONTACT
Q.F.B. Rosa Evelia Manzano Montano
Direction General de Salud Ambiental
Secretarfa de Salud
Rancho Guadalupe S/N
Metepec, E.M. C.P. 52140
Phone: 527-271-1093
lit
Ms* I
DIRECTORY OF
5
CONTACTS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
Lynda Carroll
Assistant Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6MD)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-6500
Fax: 214-665-8072
E-mail: carroll.lynda@epa.gov
CONTACT
Sam Balandran
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6MD)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8051
E-mail: balandran.sam@epa.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gestion
e Informaci6n Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revoluci6n 1425, Nivel 8
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obreg6n
Mexico, D.E C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3456
Fax: 525-624-3584
E-mail: afernand@ine.gob.mx
CONTACT
Rolando Rios
Director de Informacion Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revoluci6n 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacidn Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, D.E C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3454
Fax: 525-624-3455
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
ts;n-™?CT-iWOT»?T3
-------
U,S,-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
Jeff Scott
Deputy Division Director
"Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 9 (WST-1)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2120
E-mail: scott.jerT@epa.gov
CONTACTS
Chris Reiner
U.S. EPA Region 9 (WST-2-1)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2096
Fax: 415-744-1044
E-mail: reiner.chris@epa.gov
Bonnie S. Romo
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6EN-HS)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8323
Fax: 214-665-7264
E-mail: romo.bonnie@epa.gov
Willie Kelley
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6PD-U)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7264
E-mail: kelley.willie@epa.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Cristina Cortinas de Nava
Directora General
Materiales, Residues Peligrosos
y Actividades Riesgosas
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolucion 1425, Nivel 13
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3390
CONTACT
Ing. Luis Wolf
INE
Avenida Revolucion 1425, Nivel 13
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3427
Fax: 525-624-3586
E-mail: lwolf@ine.gob.mx
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
NATURAL RESOURCES WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
Susan Lieberman-Goodwin
U.S. DOI
MIB 4426
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-5160
Fax: 202-501-6381
E-mail: susan_goodwin@os.doi.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Javier de la Maza
Coordinador de Areas Naturales Protegidas
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolucion 1425, Nivel 25
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3329
Fax: 525-624-3589
CONTACT
Gabriela Lopez Vales
or Pia Galina
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3344
Fax: 525-624-3318
E-mail: gvales@ine.gob.mx
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
POLLUTION PREVENTION WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
Sam Coleman
Director
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6-EN)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2210
E-mail: coleman.sam@epa.gov
CONTACTS
Joy Campbell
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6EN-XP)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8036
Fax: 214-665-7446
E-mail: campbell.joy@epa.gov
Chris Reiner
U.S. EPA Region 9 (WST-2-4)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2096
Fax: 415-744-1044
E-mail: reiner.chris@epa.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gestion
e Informacion Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolucion 1425, Nivel 8
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregdn
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3570
Fax: 525-624-3584
E-mail: afernand@ine.gob.mx
CONTACT
Juan Barrera
Subdirector de Prevencion
de Contaminacion
INE-SEMARNAP
Avenida Revolucion 1425, Nivel 8
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegation Alvaro Obreg6n
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 01040
Phone: 525-624-3665
Fax: 525-624-3570
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
WATER WORKGROUP
UNITED STATES
CO-CHAIR
William Hathaway
Director
Water Quality Protection Division
U.S. EPA Region 6 (WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7101
E-mail: hathaway.william@epa.gov
CONTACTS
Oscar Cabra
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6-WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2718
Fax: 214-665-7373
E-mail: cabra.oscar@epa.gov
Eugenia McNaughton
U.S. EPA Region 9 (WTR-4)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1162
Fax: 415-744-1078
E-mail: mcnaughton.eugenia@epa.gov
MEXICO
CO-CHAIR
Ing. Jaime Tinoco Rubi
Coordinador de Asuntos Fronterizos
CNA
Privado de Relox No. 16, Piso 5
Colonia Chimalietac
Mexico, D.E C.P. 01000
Phone: 525-481-1150
Fax: 525-481-1152
E-mail: jtinoco@gsmn.cna.gob.mx
CONTACT
Ing. Jose Maria Hinojosa Aguirre
CNA
Privado de Relox No. 16, Piso 5
Colonia Chimalietac
M&cico, D.E C.P. 01000
Phone: 525-481-1150
Fax: 525-481-1152
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
10
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
U.S.! EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
Gina Weber
U.S.-Mexico Border Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6PD)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8188
Fax: 214-665-7263
E-mail: weber.gina@epa.gov
Wendy Laird-Benner
U.S.-Mexico Border Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 9 (WTR-4)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1168
Fax: 415-744-1078
E-mail: laird-benner.wendy@epa.gov
U.S. EPA BORDER LIAISON OFFICES
Darrin Swartz-Larson
Director
U.S. EPA El Paso Border Office
4050 Rio Bravo, Suite 100
El Paso, TX 79902
Phone: 915-533-7273 or 800-334-0741
Fax: 915-533-2327
E-mail: swartz-larson.darrin@epa.gov
Lorena Lopez-Powers
Director
U.S. EPA San Diego Border Office
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-powers.lorena@epa.gov
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
11
-------
i~M**l
-------
1&'.$i-A!eiu?v >•' « ^| HnHvM\,w \4 /AxV^HWKt
'i ^ii v i ^ V ii», -t, ,H ' i i v (>,,?, v« ..
v1 u ' ! \,\v, ;v .^\ ' v^'t >
,'«)'>'<>" H '1>*»M V ^ „ U ' * > . , j , V (f
• > - < > \ i ' '^«,»v» jy^^VfvvNv., -- }' .4\» \;V ^^*n»?l-r ^" ' '^l vi i»' 'Syttt4wte.»l
1 "Jf ^ , * y^^ »HV < M- ' -.
-------
<-„
*ft *t
m.
V* '
f-t
\ 4,-
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
INTRODUCTION
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or Board)
is an advisory committee to the President and
Congress of the United States. It was created
by the Enterprise for the Americas Act of 1992
and is administered by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to provide advice on
environmental and sustainable development
issues along the U.S.-Mexico border. The 25-
member board is comprised of representatives
from federal, tribal, state, and local government,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), acade-
mia, private organizations, and the community.
At the June 1999 GNEB meeting, EPA
approached the Board to explore the possibil-
ity of developing an independent assessment
of the Border XXI Program for this Progress
Report. This Border XXI Progress Report has
been developed because the conclusion of the
five-year planning period is approaching, and
its timing roughly coincides with the end of the
Clinton and Zedillo administrations in the Unit-
ed States and Mexico. EPA's stated reason for
this request was to ensure there was ah out-
side entity to evaluate how Border XXI Program activi-
ties are moving toward meeting and measuring program
goals. The GNEB agreed that the inclusion of its inde-
pendent assessment of the Border XXI Program would
enhance the report's utility.
This GNEB "assessment" for the Border XXI Progress
Report is the Board's product. The EPA agreed to incor-
porate it as an unedited addendum to the Progress
Report. The Board's goal was, in part, to evaluate
resource commitments and progress on Border XXI objec-
tives on a policy basis. The Board does not have the
time or resources to examine and evaluate the .quantita-
tive data being assembled in the Border XXI Program as
a whole. As such, we have chosen to focus on the Mis-
sion, Goal, and three Strategies described in the 7996
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Framework Document
(Framework Document).
ADDENDUM
GNEB
Assessment
of the
Border
Program
The Board places much emphasis on transboun^-'ry
conditions and activities due to the'strong binational
links and relationships that characterize the U.S.-Mexi-
co border region. However, before doing so,
we note that under its charter, the GNEB cov-
ers those issues inside the U.S. territory and
does not presume to suggest actions that
should be undertaken by Mexico. This said,
we must fulfill our obligation to inform the Pres-
ident and Congress of transboundary environ-
mental impacts on U.S. territory, as well as
their sources and causes because it is direct-
ly relevant to spending U.S. tax dollars in Mex-
ico through grants and other programs. Any of
our observations about Mexico in this report
are informed by our discussions with our Mex-
ican counterpart, the Consejo Consultivo para
el Desarrollo Sustentable, Region 1 (Region 1
Advisory Board for Sustainable Development),
and by its assessment of Border XXI that was
prepared in parallel with ours.
With its diverse representation, the GNEB
can bring to bear a comprehensive under-
standing of U.S.-Mexico border environmental
and infrastructure issues. As a consensus-driv-
en body with numerous perspectives, the Board's views
are sometimes quite diverse. In the spirit of inclusive-
ness, disparate views are communicated in this assess-
ment along with points of general consensus.
Border XXI Mission:
"To achieve a clean environment, protect public health
and natural resources, and encourage sustainable devel-
opment along the U.S.-Mexico Border."
Border XXI Goal:
• Promote Sustainable Development
• Border XXI Strategies:
- Ensure Public Involvement
- Build Capacity and Decentralize Environmental
Management
- Ensure Interagency Cooperation
Inf w= ^ ^ rt' '£a? 9 ^"committee for its work on this document: ;lraserna Coronado, Placido dos Santos, Judith Espinosa, and Mark Spald-
mg. We acknowledge that some of the^text is borrowed from Spalding, Mark "Governance Issues under the Environmental Side Agreements to NAFTA"
chapter for Economic Integration and the Border Environment to be published by the Regents of the University of California (forthcoming in early 2000).
ADDENDUM 1 - QiNEB A S S E S S M E N T O F TH E B.ORDER XXI PROGRAM
"''"'.' 1 ,
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
BORDER XXI BACKGROUND
i
The United States and Mexico signed the 1983 Border
•i Environmental Agreement (La Paz Agreement), which,
i; focused on promoting cooperative efforts to address
: environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border. It v
defines the border area as the region situated 100 kilo-
meters on either side of the international boundary. The
agreement also establishes that the U.S. and Mexico will
"cooperate in the field of environmental protection in the
border area on the basis of equality, reciprocity and
mutual benefit."
The Border XXI Program (Border XXI or Program) is
a binational plan to address the environmental issues
along the length of the U.S.-Mexico Border. The Unit-
ed States and Mexico adopted the Border XXI Program
with the release of the Framework Document dated Octo-
ber 1996. The Program is the most recent in a series
of steps designed to promote binational cooperation on
environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border. Bor-
: der XXI was created pursuant to the La Paz Agreement
and builds upon its workgroup structure. The Program
is the follow-on to the Integrated Border Environmental
Plan (IBEP), which spanned 1992-1994.
The EPA serves as the lead U.S. agency for the Bor-
der XXI Program. EPA's equivalent in Mexico is the Sec-
retariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries
(SEMARNAP). A host of other U.S. entities are identi-
fied in the Framework Document as agencies involved
In the Border XXI Program, but they seem to have ful-
filled lesser roles in the program's actual implementa-
tion. These include, but are not limited to, the U.S.
Departments of State and Agriculture and the President's
Council on Environmental Quality (Framework Document,
Appendix 3). The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI)
; serves as the lead federal agency for the program's nat-
ural resources activities and the Department of Health
and Human Services co-leads environmental health
activities with EPA.
5 The following nine binational working groups are rec-
; ognized under Border XXI:
• AIR
• WATER
• HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
• CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
• POLLUTION PREVENTION
• COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
• NATURAL RESOURCES*
• ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH*
• ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES*
* The first six of these workgroups were initially authorized
in the La Paz Agreement. Those denoted with an asterisk were
created under Border XXI.
GNEB PERSPECTIVE
The Border XXI Program has been the subject of some
controversy as a result of misunderstandings and a desire
to search for precise definitions, which are sometimes
elusive. Even the very nature of the program has been
misunderstood by many. Several of the program's ambi-
guities are identified and explored throughout this assess-
ment. The Board takes this opportunity to present its
collective view of the Border XXI Program in order to
establish the context for this evaluation.
The Border XXI Program is a coordination mecha-
nism between the United States and Mexico. The Pro-
gram does not establish new regulatory authorities for
any of the involved agencies. It is not really part of the
NAFTA package that included the creation of the Bor-
der Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) andj
the North American Development Bank (NADB). How-1
ever, because Border XXI came after the NAFTA pack-
age was finalized and the NAFTA environmental institu-
tions were starting, the effort was influenced by sus-
tainable development theory and is an evolution and
refinement of previous binational efforts to address envi-
ronmental and natural resources issues between the Unit-
ed States and Mexico. - |
The Border XXI Program is an innovative binational.
effort which brings together the diverse U.S. and Mex-j
ican federal entities responsible for the shared border)
environment. It is intended to promote cooperativej
efforts toward sustainable development through protec-l
tion of human health and the environment, and proper
management of natural resources in both countries.
ADDENDUM 1 - QNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Although numerous environmental, environmental
health, and natural resources projects are undertaken
along the length of the border, there is no clear litmus
test to help define what falls under the Border XXI coor-
dination umbrella. Consequently, it is sometimes unclear
if the efforts of the NAFTA environmental institutions such
as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC),
BECC, and NADB, or other border focused institutions
such as the Southwest Center for Environmental Research
and Policy (SCERP) and the U.S.-Mexico Foundation for
Science (FUMEC), fit under the Border XXI umbrella and,
as such, are part of the Program. Even the GNEB itself
is identified as a component of Border XXI in the 1996
Framework Document (page I.9) yet the Board's precise
function as a part of Border XXI has been ambiguous at
best until now.
The Border XXI Framework Document indicates that
the GNEB fulfills a role for the development of the Border
XXI Annual Implementation Plans (page I.8), but the Board
has never been formally asked to provide input on these
during their development, even though plans have been
developed for the years 1996-1998. This evaluation was
the first formal request for input by the Board since it com-
mented on the original Border XXI Framework and work-
plans. We also note that a 1999 Implementation Plan has
not been developed even though the year was practically
over at time of writing (December 1999). This said, the
Board acknowledges that the Border XXI Program always
was something it could and did make recommendations
about in its annual reports to the President and Congress.
The Board members see great potential from con-
tinued collaboration with Mexico's similar advisory body
called the Consejo Consultivo para el Desarrollo Sus-
tentable, Region 1 (the Consejo).2 However, many mem-
bers of the GNEB were unaware that the purpose of
their annual meeting with the Consejo is established in
the Framework Document. The document states that at
least once a year, the two advisory boards will convene
a joint meeting to evaluate the progress of the Program
(Framework Document, page II.2). Some of this ambi-
guity may be attributed to the fact that the Board's mem-
bership changed significantly during 1999. The experi-
ence points to opportunities and the great need for con-
tinual coordination efforts among Border XXI participants
and observers. EPA's request for GNEB input on this
Border XXI Report is a very positive step because this
role was also envisioned and expressly stated in the Bor-
der XXI Framework Document (page 1.8) and we concur
that this role is appropriate.
Ambiguity among the Border XXI participants has
contributed to suspicion and doubt among some mem-
bers of the public and representatives of some local gov-
ernments. Public outreach efforts are vital to counter
erroneous interpretations of the Program's objectives and
strategies even if some definitional ambiguities persist.
At its core, the Border XXI Program seems to implement
pollution control and pollution prevention to protect pub-
lic health and the environment in the transboundary set-
ting of the U.S.-Mexico border. Natural resources efforts
are also currently a component of the Border XXI Pro-
gram. Such natural resources efforts predate Border XXI
and, to a large extent, are independent of the Program's
core pollution control and pollution prevention functions,
water supply management notwithstanding.
An alternative perspective advanced by some mem-
bers of the EPA describes the Border XXI Program as a
water infrastructure and conservation/environmental
health program. This latter interpretation would include
natural resources as an integral part of the program, but
it is unclear how cooperative enforcement, one of the
nine workgroups, would fit well into this structure. Anoth-
er perspective holds that natural resources were incor-
porated into Border XXI because public input reflected
a desire for that inclusion. The fact that there is dis-
agreement about the program's core components rein-
forces the sense of ambiguity of what the program
entails, particularly since the program's stated goal is to
promote sustainable development.
Environmental health is more directly linked to the
other pollution-related aspects of the Border XXI Pro-
gram because the activities can directly or indirectly
reduce human health exposures. For this reason, the
Environmental Health Workgroup has asked to work
closely with others such as the Air Workgroup.
Si-tl
It should be noted that the GNEB and Consejo do not precisely match each other as they have different geographic focuses and membership.
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROS RAM
3
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Regardless of where they originate, border environ-
mental problems significantly impact communities and
ecosystems on both sides of the border. Border XXI
respects the sovereign rights of the United States and
; Mexico to manage their own resources according to their
own policies, and seeks to ensure that such activities do
not damage the environment of the neighboring country.
PROGRESS ON THE
BORDER XXI STRATEGIES
Ensure Public Involvement
To date, the Border XXI workgroups have included feder-
al government and state government representatives. For-
malizing places at the table for state and tribal govern-
ments has recently augmented them. This still omits civil
society (especially environmental nongovermental organi-
zations [NGO]) and the private sector. With regard to the
last group, we are concerned that EPA and SEMARNAP
have done little to effectively integrate border private sec-
tor, Including but not limited to, industrial entities.
Implementation of public outreach is a relatively new
activity for some of the parties involved in Border XXI. It
; has been performed with varying degrees of success and
effectiveness all along the U.S.-Mexico border. The fed-
era! governments' incorporation of public input opportu-
; nitles within the Border XXI workgroups, subgroups and
the high-profile annual National Coordinators Meetings, is
a significant step forward. The workgroup, subworkgroup,
and National Coordinators' Meetings are appropriate vehi-
cles for incorporating public input into the program. How-
ever, it is disappointing to see some workgroup meetings
minimally advertised, intentionally exclude the public, or
hastily organized to be conducted in cities far beyond the
border region where the public cannot reasonably attend,
or even not meet at all except at the annual National
Coordinators' Meeting. In a general sense, both federal
governments should be congratulated for the progress
that has been made since the beginning of the Border
XXI Program. However, full transparency has not been
achieved and is necessary to truly incorporate the pub-
lic in this program.
The establishment of EPA's Border Offices in San
Diego, El Paso, and Brownsville are helping consider-
ably with outreach needs. However, outreach efforts
should be developed and implemented in close coordi-
nation with tribal, state and local governments, as well
as civil society organizations, which usually have stronger
links to the residents of border communities. The offices
have taken a positive approach by establishing their own
"workshops" or "open house meetings" but more should
be held in border communities outside the offices' home
bases. Greater effort should also be made to identify
and use locally available fora ranging from Municipal
Environmental Committee meetings to local Rotary Club
meetings. The EPA should consider preparing a con-
cise annual public outreach plan that would describe the
Border XXI outreach events envisioned for the forth-
coming year in the United States.
EPA should also recognize and use the great value
of the local media for delivering its border environmen-
tal messages. Newspapers, television, and radio are
underutilized but are potentially key allies in the efforts
to change behaviors and increase public awareness
about environmental issues. The successful pursuit of
media coverage often requires personal effort and inter-
action at the local level. The mere generation of press
f
releases or media advisories is often insufficient to draw j
out positive media coverage. Consequently, close inter-
action with state and community representatives is nec-
essary to bring attention to the real world issues and to
the progress that is being made. Although this must be
executed carefully and in conjunction with local officials, I
the EPA outreach offices should develop and implement
media outreach plans for U.S. border communities. Out-
reach efforts should also continue to be undertaken withi
bilingual, binational and class-sensitive approaches that|
recognize that many border residents do not have access
to advanced communications technology such as e-mail.
It should also be noted that many residents of U.S. bor-
der communities rely heavily on Mexican media for infor-
mation conveyed in Spanish. Consequently, outreach
efforts should be oriented toward local conditions, fur-
ther emphasizing the importance of integrating local gov-
For some GNEB members, this concern has been around for some time, and has been the subject of considerable remediation effort, in particular
some view tha activity by EPA to reach a broad cross section of the stakeholder/public as extensive and that at the technical level there is strong par- [
ticlpation by NGOs and other knowledgeable sources.
ADDENDUM 1 - QNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM j
4
. .,,„ „ .. .„_. _., =_„_,—„,„—«.*-, ,-*,,..,., ^~^~«*H,r^--rr~^7»-"w^
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
ernment representatives in the design and implementa-
tion of public outreach efforts.
Additional focused effort should be made along the
length of the U.S.-Mexico border to seek public com-
ment and provide the public with information regarding
plans and progress. EPA made efforts to integrate state
and local government, as well as some civil society input
during development of the Framework Document. How-
ever, genuine public outreach has been virtually nonex-
istent in the development of the Annual Border XXI Imple-
mentation Plans. Because these are essentially the blue-
prints for the projects and activities to be performed
during two-year periods, public input opportunities
should be organized throughout the border region to pro-
vide residents with progress reports while also seeking
suggestions for future activities. This should also reach
out to Native Americans when the necessary collabora-
tion with tribal governments has been performed.
The new Environmental Information Resources Work-
group seems to have been developing well, and has the
potential to make some difference in the dissemination
of environmental information. As such this multi-media
workgroup has a difficult job, but one that is crucial to
make Border XXI effective as a multi-disciplinary and
cross-media effort. In this regard, there is a need for
greater inter-connection between workgroups (i.e., Air,
Health, Water, etc.). Some of this is underway, but the
new Environmental Information Resources Workgroup
and Environmental Health Workgroup can and should
play a vital role in making this a reality.
The workgroups should also do more to emphasize
environmental education efforts throughout the border
region. Investing in future generations and promoting
environmental education at all levels will help border
communities develop the long-term technical skills, inter-
est and knowledge necessary to address local problems.
EPA and SEMARNAP have agreed that Border XXI
documents be binational in nature. Consequently, they
are developed with input from both nations, ostensibly
incorporating public and subnational governmental input.
Because they are subject to binational approval, numer-
ous logistical complexities are introduced including the
development of binationally acceptable text, working
within binational time frames, completing accurate trans-
lations, and finally approving the reports in their entire-
ty. These binational complexities tend to bog down report
production and create a great deal of work for the agency
staff. As an unfortunate consequence, public outreach
is often ignored or is shifted to a lower priority in the
world of deadlines that are dictated from the central gov-
ernments of each nation. Nevertheless, as one of the
three fundamental strategies of the Border XXI Program,
both federal governments must do more to fully incor-
porate their public in the development of these reports.
The Border XXI Program has been described as hav-
ing ulterior motives such as surrendering national sov-
ereignty of the border region to the United Nations, or
pursuit of a "new world order." These accusations are
patently false, yet they have persisted for years in cer-
tain circles of border communities. Their prominence in
public statements by some public figures is largely an
artifact of inadequate public outreach efforts to discredit
such misrepresentations of the Border XXI Program.
Public outreach describing the environmental issues of
the border region and identifying the locally specific
efforts to address these problems is vital to counter
these baseless claims. A particularly sad result of this
was the lack of full participation by all of the border
states in Border XXI until the execution of the Coordi-
nation Principles document in mid-1999.
Build Capacity and Decentralize
Environmental Management
The GNEB perceives that the decentralization strategy
of the Border XXI Program is directed primarily at Mex-
ico's governmental operations. It is important to state
this because of some perceived ambiguities pertaining
to this topic in the Border XXI Framework document.
The following paragraph clarifies the nature of the con-
fusion surrounding the decentralization theme in the
Framework Document.
Appendix 5 of the Framework Document, entitled
"State and Municipal Decentralization and Strengthening
in Mexico in the Context of Border XXI," is a proposed
federal strategy for decentralization in Mexico. Portions
of the text in this Appendix were not written clearly
enough and led to very serious misunderstandings among
governmental entities in the United States. For exam-
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
pie, the appendix states, "In terms of water concerns
the laws of border States are significantly outdated." It
adds that, "Under Border XXI, existing legislation will be
revised to give more legal authority to state and munic-
ipal administrators. Specifically a new legal framework
will be established for each border government entity"
(Framework Document, Appendix 5.8). Such language
generated profound concerns among state and local gov-
ernmental representatives in the United States because
the text did not state with sufficient clarity and empha-
sis that this was contemplated in Mexico but not in the
United States. Thus, this language seemed to conflict
with the voluntary nature of the Border XXI Program,
which was described as an effort that does not create
new regulatory authorities. The problem within the Unit-
ed States was one of clarity, not one of intent. To avoid
such problems in the future, the EPA should provide
timely opportunities for review and comment from state
and municipal environmental agencies. The drafters of
text should always recognize the great importance of
emphasizing what is intended in the binational context and
what is intended for either the United States or Mexico.
Through Border XXI and more generally, Mexico's
federal government has expressed a commitment to
decentralize regulatory authorities to the state and local
levels. Progress has been incremental but the declara-
tion of this objective in the Border XXI Program is a very
positive development in itself. Additional movement
toward decentralization in Mexico would help shift deci-
sion-making toward the level of government closest to
the affected communities and would lead to greater par-
ity with state environmental agencies in the United
States. However, sectors of the Mexican government
and certain binational institutions have resisted this
objective for a variety of reasons.
Mexico's regulatory authority for environmental man-
agement is currently and primarily centralized at the fed-
eral level. For institutional reasons, Mexican federal agen-
cies historically focused their interaction with U.S. fed-
eral agencies and had limited interaction with U.S. state
agencies. With adoption of Border XXI, Mexican agen-
cies have recognized and accepted the strong authori-
ties at the state level in the United States. This has led
to the development of important functional links between
state environmental agencies and their Mexican federal
counterparts. For example, through the Border XXI
Enforcement Subworkgroup, Arizona, California, and
Texas have developed important operational relationships
with Mexico's Attorney General for Environmental Pro-
tection (PROFEPA), thus permitting the U.S. states to
interact on various specific issues with transboundary
implications. Similar important links have been estab-
lished with other Mexican federal agencies responsible
for other aspects of environmental management.
Because one of the three Border XXI strategies is
"Building Capacity and Decentralizing Environmental
Management," the Board takes this opportunity to
address this key area. However, before doing so, we
again note that under its charter, the GNEB provides
advice to the President and Congress on issues inside
the U.S. territory and does not presume to suggest
actions that should be undertaken by Mexico. This said,
we wish to inform the President and Congress of trans-
boundary environmental impacts on U.S. territory, as well
as their sources and causes in order for the U.S. appro-
priations process to be well informed in any decisions
on grants and other assistance offered to neighbors.
Mexico's financial management and decision-making
systems are highly centralized, with power and resources
located in Mexico City. Such a centralized structure has
profound significance for how and when transboundary
environmental issues are addressed and thus has gen-
erated much interest and discussion between the GNEB
and the Consejo. Progress has definitely been made in
Mexico during the period of the Border XXI Program,
but this has not included financial decentralization, which
is vital if decentralization is to be pursued in a mean-
ingful way. Mexican states have readily accepted new
authorities with the expectation that training and fund-
ing would follow but progress has been slow,
The Transboundary Environmental Impact Assess-
ment (TEIA) process may ultimately prove to be a casu-
alty of the decentralization problem. One of the NAFTA
parallel agreements created the Montreal-based CEC.
The CEC was charged with laying the groundwork for a
trilateral U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement to provide
transboundary governmental notice whenever a pro-
posed project has the potential of causing a significant
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROQRAM
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
transboundary environmental impact to the neighboring
country. Although the CEC did an excellent job in its
fundamental planning and preparation of draft text for
negotiations, the trilateral discussions quickly became
mired in the issue of environmental permits or licenses
subject to approval at subnational (i.e. tribal, state and
local) levels. The centralized governmental structure in
Mexico seemed to be at odds with the decentralized
system of government present in the United States and
Canada. The fundamentally different systems of gov-
ernment led to disagreements that have not yet been
resolved despite years of federal negotiations. It appears
that Canada and the United States may ultimately devel-
op a bilateral TEIA agreement while a similar agreement
may be elusive for the U.S.-Mexico border. In fact, the
effort to adhere to a centralized notification mechanism
for TEIA to function from states to our federal govern-
ment, as proposed by some federal representatives,
would merely perpetuate the centralized system that cur-
rently exists.
The management of water supplies and water qual-
ity issues in the Border region has also been notably
centralized with the current structure of the Internation-
al Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), whose
efforts are sometimes described as falling under the Bor-
der XXI umbrella. Although the United States and Mex-
ico Sections of the IBWC have made some progress in
attempting to incorporate stakeholder input for its bor-
der infrastructure planning in accordance with BECC cri-
teria, the IBWC mechanism itself remains highly cen-
tralized. This may be best typified by the organization's
role as the only official conduit for sharing water-relat-
ed information between parties in the two countries. The
different scopes of the activities performed by the IBWC
and the Border XXI Water Workgroup remains unclear
after three years of the Program's existence.
However, the efforts of the BECC and the NADB,
through their capacity-building efforts for local commu-
nities, have made a substantial contribution toward the
decentralization goals described in the Border XXI Pro-
gram. Efforts such as the NADB's Institutional Develop-
ment Program (IDP) should be recognized and nurtured
by the two federal governments.
Ensure Interagency Cooperation
Numerous agencies and academic institutions are per-
forming environmental monitoring, research, infrastruc-
ture planning, and pollution control planning along the
border. The Border XXI Program is an established coor-
dination mechanism to help facilitate and integrate these
efforts with related activities such as environmental health
studies. The Annual Border XXI National Coordinators
Meetings afford outstanding opportunities for interaction
with our Mexican counterparts. Nevertheless, overall
coordination and communication among the states and
other participants in the Border XXI Program sometimes
fall short of the actual needs.
The EPA, SEMARNAP and the environmental agen-
cies of the four U.S. and six Mexican border states have
signed a Coordination Principles document for the Bor-
der XXI Program. The agreement grew out of state con-
cerns that they had not been adequately incorporated
into the Program. The states' call for standard operat-
ing procedures or minimum performance standards for
Border XXI Workgroups evolved into the Coordination
Principles document. The Coordination Principles docu-
ment establishes mutual expectations for interagency
cooperation and the incorporation of subnational partic-
ipants into the Border XXI Program. It was designed so
that other state entities may also execute the document
and become officially recognized participants in the Pro-
gram. The EPA has expressed a strong interest in hav-
ing Native American tribal authorities formalize their par-
ticipation through the Coordination Principles document.
The development of the Coordination Principles doc-
ument has resulted in greater involvement of Mexican
state environmental authorities in the Border XXI Pro-
gram. After years of being excluded, the progress that
is now occurring to engage them into this process is
very gratifying and, in fact, is vital to address long-term
border environmental issues.
The Coordination Principles document, which was
developed by the border states, the federal governments,
and the Western Governors' Association, is an important
movement toward interagency coordination. The docu-
ment does not go far enough to remedy the problems
that can be noted in the operation of some Border XXI
workgroups. There is still a great need for minimum per-
•
I*
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
7
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
formance standards for each of the Border XXI work-
groups. The Coordination Principles document estab-
lishes that the workgroups will meet at least once per
year. If this is the only interaction among workgroup par-
ticipants, progress will be illusory for those workgroups
that make minimal effort to collaborate with state, local,
and tribal governments as well as the public.
The workgroups operate in vastly different ways and
some meet very infrequently. The absence of formal-
ized operational procedures for the workgroups has led
to a counterproductive disparity among the workgroups.
Some workgroups meet only once per year and make
negligible genuine progress, while others, such as the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup, usually coordi-
nate with tribal, state, and local authorities in an exem-
plary fashion with frequent, planned conference calls.
To ensure adequate interagency coordination, EPA and
SEMARNAP should establish minimum performance
requirements for all of the workgroups and should pro-
mote the establishment of regional subworkgroups when-
ever affected tribal, state, and local authorities concur
that subworkgroups would be useful.
The Board also recognizes that many of the Border
XXI projects have been labeled with the misnomer of
"subworkgroup." This misnomer leads to the mistaken
conclusion that the Border XXI Program has many func-
tional subworkgroups operating along the length of the
border. The terms "subworkgroup" and "project" should
not be interchangeable. Subworkgroups should be
regionally based, and have regularly scheduled meetings
with agendas and broad representation. Subworkgroups
should also specifically be co-chaired by state repre-
sentatives whenever possible as described in the Bor-
der XXI Coordination Principles document. Recognizing
criteria such as these will help identify the legitimate
subgroups working along the border such as those
formed under the Border XXI Cooperative Enforcement
and Compliance Workgroup.
EPA has stepped up its efforts to engage U.S. tribes
: in the Border XXI Program. With a Border XXI tribal
! conference held in San Diego, allocation of border infra-
structure funding for tribes, appointment of a Border XXI
tribal coordinator in EPA Region 9, and inclusion of trib-
al representatives in the Arizona-EPA Border Retreat, it
is clear that EPA is making a genuine effort. Tribal mem-
bers in Mexico have historically been limited to partici-
pating in Border XXI as individuals. The addition of states
and tribes has been very positive; next we must see an
opening of the Border XXI Program to environmental
NGOs and other forms of civil society, as well as to pri-
vate sector voices.
Besides the federal governments, several other Bor-
der XXI participants have made some progress in their
efforts to integrate state and local governments into the
Program. BECC and NADB have made notable strides
to integrate states and local entities into their planning
activities. Although some similar environmental infra-
structure programs exist for Indian communities, Tribal
representatives have made a call for enhanced access to:
the NADB and the BECC. This can and should be con-
sidered by the Administration. Through a Joint Declara-
tion in 1999, the Border Governors Conference, the ten
governors of the U.S. and Mexico border states, also1
expressed a strong interest in nominating the state rep-j
resentatives on the BECC's Board of Directors and Advi-|
sory Board in accordance with the NAFTA side agreement
that requires state representation.
The consortium of five American universities that!
comprise the SCERP, along with their seven Mexican
university associates, has also demonstrated a stronger,
interest in engaging the states and tribes through their
outreach and solicitation of input on their proposed^
research agendas. SCERP has also sought guidance
on the appropriate mechanisms for more fully integral-,-
ing tribes, Mexican states, and Mexican academic instij
tutions into their operations. The prospect of tangible
improvements in SCERP's activities is good, as long as
the consortium's management continues to work with
states and tribes to develop applied research with
defined clients and practical applications. In addition,
SCERP's conversion to programmatic research rather
than individually-driven research agenda is positive. Wp
also have high hopes for the SCERP/BECC border needfe
assessment as a vehicle to do better regional planning
i
Th. possibility of ^national tribal involvement In the next Joint meeting of the GNEB and the Conselo is a positive step toward enhanced collaboration.
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
^•HajMESE^a. __,.,„
J. •; S-~i$ '$*& ,:
-------
i S
,*£££-
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Also omitted have been civil society and private sector
interest groups. Private sector participation is particu-
larly critical because of the need for their involvement
in designing and implementing industrial pre-treatment
programs that the FUMEC has attempted to support for
border communities. Because it has focused on water
issues, some of the FUMEC's shortcomings may be part-
ly attributable to the Border XXI Water Workgroup, which
has been the subject of widespread criticism and whose
scope is ill defined with regard to the IBWC activities.
The CEC is a trilateral organization among the U.S.,
Canada and Mexico, but some of its activities have been
linked to the Border XXI Program (Framework Document,
pages 1.9, and 11.3, item 7). The CEC learned a great
deal about the importance of integrating the local per-
spectives, both governmental and citizen views, as a
result of some serious controversy related to its Article
13 study of the globally-important San Pedro River that
straddles the Arizona-Sonora border. The CEC has made
substantial progress on interagency cooperation as a
Border XXI participant (Framework Document, page 1.9).
The CEC's broader mission involving the entire North
American Continent, coupled with its Canadian-based
headquarters, presents it with challenges for interagency
cooperation on the border yet it approaches these issues
very capably with its multinational staff.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE
BORDER XXI MISSION AND GOAL
The principal goal of Border XXI is "to promote sus-
tainable development in the border region by seeking a
balance among social and economic factors and the
protection of the environment in border communities and
natural areas" (Framework Document, page 1.1). A pre-
cise reading of the Framework Document clarifies that
the Program's goal is to promote sustainable develop-
ment without having a parallel aspiration to achieve it.
Consequently, the EPA's Border XXI Program efforts to
promote sustainable development through events such
as the 1998 Border Institute held in Rio Rico, Arizona,
and the 1999 Sustainable Development Workshop held
in Brownsville, Texas, and the various other activities
that are consistent with sustainable development, could
be identified as evidence of the program's success.
However, promoting sustainable development without an
aspiration to achieve it seems to trivialize the massive
binational coordination effort that is underway and direct-
ed toward sustainable development.
Some perceive a glaring disconnect between the
Border XXI Program's sustainable development goal and
the activities performed under the Border XXI umbrel-
la. The Program's scope and composition are inade-
quate to genuinely move the border region toward sus-
tainable development.
If the Program's only measure of effectiveness were
the border region's progress toward sustainable devel-
opment, the Program might be considered a failure.
However, this would ignore the important progress that
has been made toward pollution control and pollution
prevention between the United States and Mexico. It
would also ignore the strong impact that North Ameri-
can socioeconomic factors play in constantly driving us
further from sustainable development along the border.
Regardless of the definition that one uses, sustain-
able development in the U.S.-Mexico border region is a
more distant goal today than it was in 1996 with incep-
tion of the Border XXI Program. In the three years that
the Border XXI Program has been in place, the border
region's population increased from about 11 million to
12 million people. The border region continues to grow
at a remarkable rate and projections suggest that the
population may double to 24 million people by the year
2020. The growth of the border region is, to a large
extent, fueled by the economic disparity that exists on
either side of the international border that separates our
two nations as much as it unifies them.
A key element of this growth is the industrialization
of Mexico's northern border spurred by U.S. demand for
inexpensive consumer goods. Throughout the world, com-
panies competing in the global market have made sensi-
ble business decisions to seek out the lower wage labor
force available in developing nations. Many labor-inten-
sive industries, largely U.S., for decades have sought to
minimize shipping costs and to have ready access to facil-
ities, including suppliers, by establishing operations in
communities in Mexico, particularly along the border. This
was further facilitated by adoption of laws for "in bond"
SfcsfiT
mi
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XX] PROQRAM
-9
"St. »"
•» '
,,*
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
assembly and manufacturing facilities with favorable
Import/export tariff treatment and known as maquilado-
ras. These maqulladoras are often matched by related
company facilities in the United States that house man-
agement, warehousing, distribution and other functions.
Together they are often referred to as "twin plants."
The maquiladora industry has offered new opportu-
nities for those in other sections of Mexico where socioe-
conomic problems, including high unemployment and
very low wages, are more severe. The result has been
the Influx to the border communities of hundreds of thou-
sands from the interior of the country, particularly cen-
tral and southern Mexico. Because the number of
migrants may exceed the maquiladora job opportunities,
some individuals remain unemployed or underemployed
in border communities. Consequently, many individuals
must supplement their incomes by working multiple jobs
or by sharing household expenses with others.
A 1999 report by Mexico's national statistics agency,
INEGI, indicates that maquiladoras employ over one mil-
lion workers in Mexico with approximately 804,000 of
those jobs located in the border region.5 The report also
indicates that the average wages for maquiladora work-
ers (obreros) is about US$1.00 per hour including ben-
efits (i.e. about US$2,500 annually). The average hourly
wage for technical level workers is about US$2.90 includ-
ing benefits (i.e. about US$6,700 annually).6 A 1999
report by the U.S. Department of Labor indicates that
the average maquiladora wage for "export processing"
was US$14.00 per day in 1998, or about US$1.56 per
hour excluding benefits such as meals and subsidized
housing if available.7
While maquiladora wages are considerably higher
than Mexico's minimum wage of US$3.00 per day, the
maintenance of low absolute salaries on both sides of
the border, coupled with rapid growth of the region,
undoubtedly contribute to the environmental and envi-
ronmental health issues that exist along the length of
the border. Some critics assert that the great physical
distance between the border communities and the twin
plant facility owners (parent companies) generates a
sense of detachment for so-called "absentee-owned cor-
porations." While some twin plants have yet to effec-
tively address the issues of border communities, it should
be noted that others are considered model corporate
citizens. Regardless, twin plant operations often mini-
mize taxes paid to Mexico by avoiding making their
maquiladoras profit centers. In addition, when maquilado- <,
ras pay taxes to the centralized financial bureaucracy in
Mexico City, much of these taxes do not return to the
border communities, and are instead used to address
needs elsewhere throughout Mexico.
The tax base of U.S. and Mexican border commu-
nities is often too small for current needs, much less for
the provision of infrastructure for projected growth. The
result is that border communities are unable to gener-
ate enough in tax revenues to support the governmen-
tal entities that implement and manage environmental |
infrastructure systems for potable water, sewage collec-
tion, wastewater treatment, solid waste management and
road paving projects which are necessary to control par- j
ticulate air pollution. This socioeconomic problem thus}
manifests itself in domestic and transboundary environ- •
mental and health problems.
Many of the citizens of the border region are unable
to afford the basic housing that is required for a suit-
able standard of living. The impoverished population in
border communities, whether employed, unemployed, or
underemployed, leads to shantytowns, often referred to
as colonias. The colonias located on either side of the
border, usually lack potable water systems and sewage
collection systems. During winter, the inadequate hous-
ing of the colonias often leads to burning of wood fuel
within the homes for warmth. This can lead to unsafe
conditions and has resulted in fatalities from carbon
monoxide build-up within homes. It also represents an
important area-wide air pollution source. The inadequate
wastewater management systems in colonias contami-
nate shared rivers and groundwater.
In this terribly unsustainable scenario, heavy depend-
ence on U.S. grant funding is an inescapable conclusion
if the needs are to be addressed to protect the residents;
of U.S. border communities. Many contend that U.S. grant
funding is the appropriate monetary source to address bor-
Institute National de Estadfstica, Geograffa e Informatica (INEGI), Feb 1999 - Estadfsticas Economicas, Industria Maquiladora de Exportation.
Ibid.
U.S. Department of Labor, 1999 - Foreign Labor Trends in Mexico.
ADDENDUM 1 - SNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
10
&GUMT' '
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program; Progress Report 1996-2000
der environmental issues because the economic benefits
are realized by consumers throughout the United States
whenever they purchase products that were assembled or
manufactured in the border region. However, long-term
dependence on federal grant funding may place the bor-
der environment at risk if such federal funding continues
to be reduced, as has been the recent trend.
Although the NADB has made notable strides to move
border communities toward financially sustainable solu-
tions, the bank projects that $1 billion in new grant fund-
ing will be necessary over the next ten years (NADB's
U.S.-Mexico Border Ten-Year Outlook, Summer 1999). The
absence of this grant funding will make the NADB's loans
unaffordable to border communities in both countries. The
Board notes that the Congress reduced EPA's FY2000
appropriation for border infrastructure needs from $100
million to $50 million. This significant reduction in EPA's
appropriations for border water and wastewater infra-
structure projects will impede the construction of neces-
sary projects and is a major setback for poor communi-
ties along the length of the border.
A long-term strategy is necessary to address the root
cause of the unsustainable nature of the border region's
growth. The U.S. government should engage the Mexi-
can government and the private sector in pursuit of new
economic mechanisms that will address environmental and
humanitarian needs without eternal dependence on larger
and larger federal grants. The pursuit of low-cost hous-
ing for every employee of U.S.-owned companies should
be an integral part of these governmental discussions with
the private sector. Optimally, appropriate economic com-
pensation should be pursued for twin plant workers to
ensure that they are able to acquire adequate housing
while addressing the appurtenant infrastructure needs.
Because the NAFTA is the first trade liberalization
agreement that contains provisions to deal with the envi-
ronmental issues that arise in the context of trade rela-
tions and disputes, and because the NAFTA package
includes two environmental side agreements, the NAFTA's
ultimate success depends on the development and imple-
mentation of a long-term economic strategy for the envi-
ronmental well-being of the U.S.-Mexico border region.
This is a binational problem that will require innovative
public and private sector cooperation to resolve.
OTHER BORDER XXI ISSUES
As noted above, binational cooperation on natural
resources issues predates the Border XXI Program. When
Border XXI was developed, Natural Resources was one
of three new workgroups created by the federal govern-
ments without consulting the states or local governments.
The inclusion of a Natural Resources Workgroup in the
Border XXI Program has created apprehension and some
confusion while producing minimal benefit for those that
have been working together on binational natural resources
issues for many years without the Border XXI umbrella.
Widespread public apprehension about the natural
resources component of Border XXI can be traced back
to the powers of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
the actions of federal land management and wildlife man-
agement agencies in the western United States.8 This
became particularly alarming to some when ESA's pow-
ers were viewed in the context of the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der region. Many wondered what the outcome or actions
might be. The ESA does have implications for private
property rights in the United States including land man-
agement and water management. The inclusion of nat-
ural resources into the Border XXI Program introduced
volatility that, in some circles, painted over the Border
XXI Program as a whole. Many environmental agency
representatives in the United States were concerned that
ESA-related actions that happened to occur within the
defined 100-kilometer border region would somehow be
misconstrued as Border XXI "actions" and thus gener-
ate an uproar about the Program as a whole.
State natural resources agencies have not readily
embraced the Border XXI Program, choosing instead to han-
dle their binational pursuits through other pre-existing fora.
We have also noted that the Border XXI Program, as a coor-
dination mechanism, has had very little benefit for DOI's
pursuits on natural resources issues in general. Meanwhile,
DOI has been very successful with its Mexican counterpart
(SEMARNAP) without having to wave the Border XXI flag.
IffJ
HI
m\
We note that some of us view the ESA as lacking in adequate power to really accomplish its mandate, while many feel its powers are too strong.
ADDENDUM 1 - QNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
11
v «• ^ ^ ? :;-ss
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
It is apparent that the Natural Resources Workgroup
Is not a good fit in the Border XXI Program, which is
essentially a pollution control and pollution prevention
effort. Some members of the public made a call for inclu-
sion of natural resources issues during the public com-
ment period for the Framework Document but it is now
clear that other members of the public believe it should
be excluded. The GNEB recognizes Mexico's more holis-
tic view of the environment which has integrated natural
resources with other environmental quality responsibilities
under a single federal institution called the SEMARNAP.
However, the fundamentally different regulatory scheme
in the United States, as well as its sensitive political impli-
cations, should be evaluated as important considerations
for the Program's current structure, and for the future con-
tent of a successor program after 2001.
While some of the Annexes to the La Paz Agreement
address air issues, the GNEB also notes the absence of
a binationai institution charged with providing financial
assistance to address air quality issues. As the results
of binationai air quality studies emerge, it is becoming
clear that area sources, such as unpaved roads and the
lack of adequate public transportation, present important
health risks for border residents. Although road paving
projects are undertaken with state and federal assistance,
U.S. and Mexican communities suffer from the same fund-
ing issues described earlier in this paper for water and
wastewater infrastructure. The two federal governments
should evaluate possible financial mechanisms to assist
with transboundary air pollution problems ranging from
burning landfills to unpaved roads.
The Border XXI Program itself seems to be minimally
funded, but the Program's existence has elevated aware-
ness of the need for additional binationai environmental
infrastructure funding. Even so, Congressional appro-
priations have decreased for environmental programs as
a whole and for border environmental programs in par-
ticular. This trend is very disconcerting because the bor-
der region's needs are not being addressed due to fund-
ing shortfalls.
A second aspect of the funding issues relates direct-
ly to ERA's internal allocation of border funding. The
bulk of the border-related funding apparently comes from
other EPA programs such as Water and Wastewater Man-
agement but there is no firm process for the allocation
of these funds to border needs. In addition it appears
that there is no line item in EPA's budget strictly for
funding border programs, with the possible exception of
water and wastewater infrastructure funding. The func-
tional link between the Border XXI Program's initiatives
and funding distribution is not clear at this time. EPA
should develop a strategic link between activities per-
formed under the Border XXI Program, and the funding
that is necessary to carry out those activities over the
course of the Program. This is a very difficult issue due
to the annual nature of budget appropriations. Never-
theless, budget appropriations should be initiated and
pursued with as much commitment, vigor and intera-
gency cooperation as is needed for the project activi-
ties themselves. It can also eliminate some ambiguity
about the Border XXI Program, because it might pave
the way for the development of a more precise defini-|
tion to identify Border XXI projects. An EPA line item |
for border funding could establish a litmus test for defin-1
ing a Border XXI project or activity. Such a line item!
should also establish that broad binationai coordination'
needs, which are fundamental to the success of the Pro-
gram, requires firm and consistent financial support.
We note that the BECC's operational budget may
barely suffice for the water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture efforts that it pursues but, assuming additional
resources are identified, the institution's mandate should
eventually be expanded to address the need for addi-
tional hazardous waste management facilities (Treatment,1
Storage and Disposal or "TSDs"). The critical shortage!
of such facilities, particularly in Mexico, raises serious
concerns about the ultimate disposition of hazardous
wastes in the border region. TSDs are private sector^
business endeavors, but the BECC could play a veryj
useful role in promoting and certifying the establishment;
of such facilities in Mexico.
Also pertaining to hazardous wastes, binationaj
efforts are still needed to ensure the completeness, accu-
racy and compatibility of the U.S. HAZTRAKS and Mex-1'
ico's SIRREP hazardous waste tracking mechanisms
which is supposed to address transport in the trans-
boundary setting. The adequacy and compatibility of
these two databases is necessary to ensure that haz-;-
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
_ , ,J2.---V - - ,-.,„„.f,,.™,™,,-^,-,v1m«™
-------
-V* '
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
"£•4*1
ill
ardous waste generators are properly managing their
materials in accordance with applicable laws.
CONCLUSION
As a five-year plan, Border XXI looks beyond single Con-
gressional appropriation cycles, but falls short of taking
the long-term view. It is notably attempting to put in
place the use of long-term indicators of human and
ecosystem health.9 It is still heavily focused on feder-
al interaction and has not fully succeeded in building
local capacity or in thoroughly fostering public support.
It has, however, made the work of the La Paz work-
groups more accountable to the public through their indi-
vidual transparency or failure to work transparently.
Because Border XXI is a continuation of the IBEP
and is the result of the La Paz Agreement, which was
signed by the President of each country in 1983, it is
likely that Border XXI or a similar successor will contin-
ue to serve as a coordinating mechanism for the two
countries. As Border XXI continues to emphasize trans-
parency to the public as well as to tribal, state, and
local governments, there will be more participation by
those governments and from NGOs and the private sec-
tor in the workgroup and subworkgroup process. Most
likely this will also mean a lengthier decision-making
process. As decentralization continues to result in
greater decision-making capability by state and local
governments, particularly in Mexico, there will be more
state-to-state collaboration on local regional projects.
One can already see collaboration among the four Unit-
ed States and six Mexican border states through the
Ten State Alliance that ironically gelled out of concerns
about being excluded from the Border XXI Program. The
federal governments will probably play a different role
in this decision-making paradigm.
The improved communications and dialogue that
exists between state and federal environmental officials
in the United States and Mexico is an important bene-
fit of the Border XXI Program. A variety of binational
projects have been implemented which might otherwise
not have been possible without the Border XXI Program
or some other binational coordination mechanism. We
must ensure that the communications avenues that lead
to such projects continue to be available because they
are the underlying basis for cooperative binational efforts
to mitigate environmental issues. As with any massive
coordination effort, the Border XXI Program does have
room for improvement. This will always be the case.
The GNEB hopes to see more rapid decentralization
and greater local empowerment as the Border XXI Pro-
gram continues to mature. This delegation of authority
and the need for more local implementation should be
accompanied by a commensurate distribution of fund-
ing to support the tribal, state and local involvement
which is vital to the success of the Program.
In the broader context of trade, environment, and
quality of life, the ultimate success of the NAFTA is heav-
ily dependent upon the involved parties' ability to miti-
gate and, whenever possible, remedy the challenging
environmental issues of the rapidly-growing border
region. The importance of resolving these environmen-
tal issues in a binationally cooperative manner cannot
be overstated. The Border XXI Program is the only exist-
ing coordination mechanism to this end. Consequently,
GNEB supports the Program and we encourage the fed-
eral governments to perpetuate these binational efforts
beyond 2001. Such efforts must be accompanied by
commensurate funding from both federal governments.
s-s-l
ISfipl
if
representatives. This would be especially
ADDENDUM 1 - GNEB ASSESSMENT OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
13
-------
3 f
.•<*•**
f I V, * *
-------
August 2000
Ma. Julia Carabias Lillo
Secretary of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries
Mexico City
Since its creation in 1995, the Border XXI Program has established public participation in the monitoring
and guidance of environmental management as one of its three strategies for action. In this regard, it is
my pleasure to present to you the evaluation of the (aforementioned) program that the Region I Advisory
Council for Sustainable Development has developed. The Advisory Council comments on the achievements
j and shortcomings of the program, and, most importantly, establishes short- and medium-term recommen-
jdations to guide current and future activities for binational environmental planning along the border.
The commentary represents a concrete expression of the completion of the mission for which these
Advisory Councils were created: to assist, advise, and define a trajectory for Mexico's environmental poli-
cy. In this sense, the document represents a practical model of civil society's participation in monitoring
public administration.
Border XXI is a binational cooperative effort between Mexico and the United States to promote sus-
jtainable development in the shared border region through nine workgroups. Five years after its inception,
an assessment of the program is not only desirable, but also essential to begin to reflect upon the under-
taking that, with the support of civil society, we should launch at the beginning of the new century.
Without a doubt, there have been important achievements in Border XXI. But there are also unre-
solved matters. The progress related to border environmental infrastructure was very significant. Thanks
to the work of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Develop-
ment Bank (NADB), Mexico will be able to meet the Border XXI goals for the year 2000, providing 93 per-
cent of the Mexican border population with drinking water, 75 percent with sewer systems, and 81 percent
with wastewater treatment (as compared to 88 percent, 69 percent, and 34 percent, respectively, in 1995).
With regards to air, we also had concrete improvements, not only in the understanding of air quality
conditions through monitoring systems, but also in the establishment of two programs for the improvement
of air quality in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, and Mexicali, Baja California.
As far as environmental information is concerned, I believe that, with Border XXI, Mexico made an
unprecedented qualitative leap forward, with the development of environmental indicators, with the creation
of a web page, and with the publication of the Report on the State of the Environment and Natural Resources
along Mexico's Northern Border.
Also notable is the cooperation that we have undertaken with the U.S. Department of the Interior relat-
ing to natural protected areas in the border region. Each day we come closer to managing our resources
as shared ecosystems.
In addition, we have also made important gains in the areas of environmental health, in monitoring the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, and in cooperation on law enforcement.
As the Advisory Council accurately points out, there are various issues under Border XXI that received
only partial attention, such as private sector participation, the topic of environmental education, marine
resources, the link with scientific research, etc. These are all issues which we should address in the future.
The promotion of sustainable development is, without a doubt, a complex subject, and I am sure that
the recommendations herein illustrate possible avenues for advancing this concept. It is clear that decen-
ralization and public participation will be two essential factors.
It is evident that much remains to be done, but I believe that on balance, Border XXI is very positive
and I am certain that the we can rely on our vast experience to design a framework for environmental man-
agement that will make the most of the comparative advantage of the border situation in the coming years.
The document presented here is the product of collective Advisory Council discussions. It gives form
o the central objective of including public scrutiny as an indispensable part of public administration, and
-epresents, without a doubt, a source of important guidance for future cooperative environmental actions
along the Mexico-United States border.
Julia Carabias Lillo
-------
J* ,
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: 'Progress Report 1996-2000
INTRODUCTION
The Consejo Consultivo para el Desarrollo Sustentable,
Region 1 (CCDS, or council, Mexico's Region 1
Council for Sustainable Development) prepared
this Border XXI Program evaluation document to
outline the obstacles and accomplishments of
the organizations that make up the program
workgoups. Progress and deficiencies in com-
munity participation are also described herein.
As an advisory council, we recognize that
the program was signed under the precepts
developed at the Rio summit and its declara-
tions that emerged as Agenda XXI, which, cou-
pled with efforts of the U.S. and Mexico gov-
ernments to improve the quality of life in the
border region, initiated a process long awaited
by the residents of this region.
Border XXI was introduced to the border
community as a more coherent program than its
predecessors. It incorporates the Secretarfa del
Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca
(SEMARNAP, or Secretariat of Environment, Nat-
ural Resources, and Fisheries) institutional
arrangement and the joint experience of the two
environmental organizations created by ancillary agree-
ments to the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA): the Border Environmental Cooperation Commis-
sion (BECC), and the North American Development Bank
(NADB), to create a unique concept of community partic-
ipation.
The program itself reflects the spirit of the border
region with its complex cultural mix, its diverse landscapes,
and the fragility of its ecosystems, natural resources, and
wildlife, which demand management coordinated with the
border society and the three government levels of both
countries. :,-•'. •'.
The challenge of Border XXI for the region's residents
was also accepted by the members of this council, which,
with sleeves rolled up, has worked in harmony without
complacency, with the authorities, initiating in this way a
transparent process of environmental management that we
view as historic. It represents one of the first efforts of
coordination between the governors and those governed.
ADDENDUM
CCDS
Evaluation
Recommenda-
tions on the
Border XXI
Program
This program introduces itself into recent Mexican histo-
ry as one of the first democratic alternatives for environ-
mental infrastructure development, with the use of a new
management tool based on community partici-
pation. Former programs, which did not serve
their purpose, generated not only a lack of cred-
ibility, but a great quantity of inappropriate infra-
structure projects. The change begun by
SEMARNAP has been converted to a challenge
that other federal agencies have not been able
to surpass, and has created expectations of
change throughout Mexico's political system.
The community today is experiencing a
new instrument that presents serious challenges
to the previous design, and that holds as its
principal objective sustainable development, that
strives to strike a balance among economic
interest, society's needs, and the protection of
our environment.
It is important to note that the opinions
expressed herein were unanimously accepted by
the council's Permanent Commission on Inter-
national Affairs.
We recognize the positive performance of
the federal authorities responsible for environ-
mental protection in their interest in keeping the commu-
nity involved, efforts we maintain represent an important
accomplishment. Nevertheless, our recognition does not
imply tacit approval of the program or its actions as a
result of it.
This evaluation has been made possible thanks to
the opportunity provided by the advisory councils and to
the progress made by SEMARNAP in improving access
to information and in promoting sustainable development
during this current federal administration.
OVERVIEW OF THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE COUNCIL
The CCDS is made up of representatives from the nine
northern states of the Mexican Republic: Baja Califor-
nia, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua,
Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Le6n, and Tamaulipas.
ADDENDUM 2 - C C D S E V A L U ATI O N A N D R E C 6 M M EN D AT 1 O N S ON T H E B O Rp ER. XX) PROQ.RAM
. ••-."'••' . ' .1
-------
r
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
Its 12 members from each state (appointed and substi-
tutes) represent the social, academic, nonprofit, gov-
ernmental, business, and legislative sectors, for a total
of 54 appointed members and 54 substitutes.
The goal of this council, like that of the other four
advisory councils in the country, is to guarantee a corre-
sponding level of participation in public politics in regard
to the environment, as well as to establish mechanisms
for coordination, initiation, and negotiation between the
authorities and society on environmental issues.
The council's functions include advising SEMARNAP
on the design, Implementation, and evaluation of nation-
al environmental and natural resource development strate-
gies; proposing, evaluating, and making recommendations
on environmental and natural resource development poli-
cies, programs, studies, and specific actions; and encour-
aging public inquiry, comment, and negotiation on nation-
al strategies necessary for sustainable development.
Since their appointment on May 14, 1995, in Chi-
huahua, Chihuahua, the council's members have dedi-
cated their time, and in many cases their resources, to
facilitate and strengthen activities that promote sustain-
able development. Additionally they have developed
communication links with the Central American councils,
the United States Presidential Sustainable Development
Council, and especially the Good Neighbor Environ-
mental Board (GNEB), also of the United States.
Given the importance of the program in Region I, a
permanent commission was created for following up with
Border XXI. The commission was originally called "Bor-
ders and the Free Trade Agreement," and has since been
changed to "International Affairs."
The commission has reported its progress and chal-
lenges faced during its regular sessions to the council.
The commission has been responsible for coordination
between the workgroup co-chairs and the President;
organized public inquiry meetings to evaluate the draft
document; participated in ail organized meetings for dis-
cussing the program; and, on occasion, its members
have been invited to private co-chair meetings of the
nine workgroups. We recognize these activities as
numerous opportunities afforded the advisors to attend
meetings, comment on program content, and introduce
ideas on the program.
The linkages developed with the GNEB in the United
States are also important, as they have served to broad-
en the program's regional perspective by involving the
border community and its representatives. The Region
I advisory council has held two binational meetings with
the GNEB; also, a representative of our counterpart is
always invited to attend regular meetings.
The task is not complete; we would like to see that
the future administration afford continuity to the program,
given its vital importance in achieving sustainable devel-
opment in the Northern Mexico border region.
ADVANCES IN ACHIEVING THE
PROGRAM'S MISSIONS PROMOTING
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Accomplishments
In its evaluation of the Border XXI Program, the Region
I Advisory Council for Sustainable Development is of the
general opinion that progress has been made in pro-
moting sustainable development in the border region,
but this progress is insufficient. The majority of pro-
gram activities have been more directed at containing
damage to environmental and natural resources than to
achieving sustainability.
With regard to this last aspect, the council recog-
nizes significant advancement on the various workgroup
projects, as follows: the Water Workgroup along with the
BECC and NADB has improved sanitary infrastructure,
especially with regard to wastewater treatment along the
border, which has increased from 34 percent in 1995 to
81 percent in the year 2000; the Air Workgroup has
improved air monitoring and completed air monitoring pro-
grams in Juarez, Mexican, and Tijuana; the Environmen-
tal Health Workgroup has made efforts in the design and
operation of the Clean Water in Homes program; the Envi-
ronmental Information Resource Workgroup has estab-
lished environmental indicators and developed the Reporte
del Estado Ambiental y de los Recurso Naturales en la
Frontera Norte de Mexico (Report on the State of the
Environment and Natural Resources in the Northern Bor-
der of Mexico); the progress made by the Natural
Resources Workgroup in designing and operating man-
agement plans for various natural protected areas; and in
ADDENDUM 2 - CODS EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
2
-------
!&*»
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
general the effort of other workgroups in the areas of
tracking hazardous wastes, emergency response, and
enforcement and compliance.
Since its inception, the Border XXI Program has
become a model for involving the community in sustain-
able development issues. The binational nature of the
program in particular has allowed the resurgence of cer-
tain cultural values relating to the theme of caring for the
common environment that applies to the communities on
both sides of the border. It is important to note in this
respect that our country has benefitted from the com-
munity participation process that has been encouraged
binationally through Border XXI.
With respect to encouraging sustainable develop-
ment, the council considers the relevant workshops that
took place in 1999 in Reynosa, Tamaulipas; Linares, Nuevo
Leon; Piedras Negras, Coahuila; Ciudad Juarez, Chi-
huahua; and in Nogales, Sonora, as very important to this
process. These workshops represent an exciting way of
working to involve the community, along with the three
levels of government, in planning for sustainable devel-
opment in these locations.
Deficiencies
The 1996 U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Framework
Document (Framework Document) deviated from the
assumption that the proper functioning of the nine Bor-
der XXI workgroups in itself was sufficient for driving the
process of promoting sustainable development in the
region. In light of progress made, clearly this assump-
tion was short sighted. It lacked an interinstitutional
implementation strategy that would join collaboration
from the three governmental levels with a wide com-
munity participation base to promote sustainable devel-
opment at the local level in each community.
Other factors in Border XXI that limit the promotion
of sustainable development include the following:
• The persistence of the centralized decision making
structure
• The lack of interinstitutional participation at the fed-
eral level (that is, failure to involve other secretariats
besides SEMARNAP, Secretarfa de Salud [SSA, or Sec-
retariat of Health] and the Secretarfa de Desarrollo Social
[SEDESOL, or Secretariat of Social Development]).
• The lack of efficient mechanisms for intrasecretarial
coordination (for example in SEMARNAP, with the decen-
tralized organizations, federal delegations, etc.)
• Insufficient involvement and participation from state
and municipal governments
• The need for an assigned budget in Mexico for the
program
• The lack of mechanisms for information dissemination
between the authorities responsible for the program and
the local communities
• The absence of environmental educations at all lev-
els, especially in the local communities
As a form of self criticism, the council has character-
ized the flow of Border XXI information from itself to the
local communities as deficient.
Observations
• The principle of community participation is implicit to
the concept of sustainable development. Clearly it is
not possible to promote sustainable development with-
out public involvement.
• Another central principle is reducing the decision-mak-
ing level to achieve sustainable development. It is there-
fore implicit that environmental problem solving and nat-
ural resources stewardship must take place at the level
of authority closest to the issue, which means increased
participation at the state and municipal level.
• It is erroneous to believe that sustainable develop-
ment is achieved with environmental policy, since the
population's priority is to take care of its core needs,
and does not perceive sustainable development to be a
part. A governmental strategy to that end must tend to
the tasks of fighting poverty and patrons of urban devel-
opment in a holistic institutional arrangement.
if
ADDENDUM 2 - CODS EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
3
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM'S
THREE STRATEGIC AREAS
Public Participation
The council recognizes that the binational character of
the program has enriched public participation on the
border with mechanisms that have been new to Mexi-
co. In 1995 and 1996, 10 public meetings (national and
binational) were held along the border to receive public
comment on the design phase of the program. The level
of participation and public response was overwhelming.
The council agrees that the Border XXI Environ-
mental Information Resources Workgroup made a
tremendous effort to generate public information and to
make it available to the public. In particular, the 7997
United States-Mexico Border Environmental Indicators
Report (1997 Indicators Report), the Internet web page,
and the Reporte del Estado Ambiental y de los Recur-
so Maturates en la Frontera Norte de Mexico (Report on
the State of the Environment and Natural Resources in
the Northern Border of Mexico) represent a significant
advance in providing the Mexican public with knowledge
of the environmental reality on the border.
The council recognizes SEMARNAP and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to
include public comment in the first draft of Border XXI.
Despite the overwhelming public consultation at
the beginning of the program, there was no continuity
after 1996. In 1997 and 1998, inquiry declined signif-
icantly. Even so, the council admits that the forums
held in the six border state to discuss environmental
indicators in Border XXI were highly useful.
In terms of daily operation, Border XXI does not
establish permanent participation mechanisms. The
workgroups in particular have not involved the com-
munity. The national coordinators meetings have not
been designed to facilitate public participation since
the public comment periods have been largely insuf-
ficient.
The council recognizes that BECC has encouraged
community participation, which for Mexico has been an
important learning process. This binational institution
has required community participation as a substantial
requisite for project certification.
The council recognizes SEMARNAP and EPA's j|
efforts to involve their respective councils.
Institutional Strengthening
and Decentralization
One of the primary limitations of Border XXI relates to the
few advances made with respect to decentralization, due
to a variety of institutional, legal, and economic conflicts.
SEMARNAP was confronted initially with obstacles to
combining its diverse areas and the absence of a regu-
lation lending it legal support, combined with bureaucratic
inertia in certain areas of SEMARNAP decentralization
activities. Meanwhile, the states had a wide variety of
approaches to decentralization proposals, in some cases
caused by a lack of motivation to (1) assume federal func-
tions in some cases, and (2) strengthen state environ-
mental management programs in others.
The pretense of transferring functions without trans-
ferring resources (which for SEMARNAP were extreme-
ly limited) to entities was perhaps one of the principal
limitations for improving decentralization. The advance
of some decentralization activities has produced various
effects; Institute Nacional de Ecologia (INE, or National
Institute of Ecology) and the Comision Nacional del Agua
(CNA, or National Water Commission), were able to
implement projects with specific resources, the "Mega
Secretary" created has not been able to define certain
program goals due to a lack of resources.
Another force that restricted decentralization was
Mexico's institutional structure that does not allow long-
term program planning, but rather only in six-year terms.
In terms of institutional strengthening, the council rec-
ognizes INE's Environmental Management Strengthening
Program, which has assigned equipment, training, and
resources to state and certain municipal ecological offices.
The assigned resources, however, were insufficient.
Interinstitutional Coordination
The council recognizes that the Border XXI Program has
been an excellent framework for binational institutional
coordination, especially at the federal level. The coor- |
dination among SEMARNAP, SSA, and SEDESOL in Mex- |
ico, and EPA, the Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices (HHS), and the Department of the Interior (DOl) in
ADDENDUM 2 - CODS EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
WSS*1^
-------
U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000
the United States, has provided an impetus for projects
that have not been implemented under other circum-
stances (water, air, natural protected areas, pollution pre-
vention, etc.).
At the same time, concrete Border XXI efforts of
local institutions on both sides of the border, without
federal involvement, are commended.
It serves to mention that Border XXI achieved the
first connection with the six border states. As part of
these coordination efforts, a work plan was established
with themes such as a local Agenda 21, decentraliza-
tion, industrial waste management, etc. These tasks, in
conjunction with a variety of U.S. initiatives, paved the
way for signing the coordination agreement between the
National Coordinators (SEMARNAP and EPA) and the 10
border states in May 1999. The council believes that
the agreement needs to be more detailed and put into
operation. Border XXI has not promoted specific coor-
dination instruments at the municipal level.
Border XXI's intent to create local, binational work
subgroups that was set forth in the Framework Docu-
ment, was limiting to certain workgroups, such as the
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance and the Nat-
ural Resources Workgroups. This undoubtedly limited
program coordination at .the state and municipal level.
The council believes that Border XXI coordination
with the organizations created by NAFTA is insufficient.
While BECC and NADB worked with the committee coor-
dinator to that end, major interaction was lacking on
occasion. Also, Border XXI had hardly any relation to
the Commission for Environmental Cooperation projects.
As a result of the lack of electronic infrastructure in Mex-
ican border communities, access to available informa-
tion generated by those institutions developed through
NAFTA was deficient.
Widespread resistance to change at the heart of
Mexican federal institutions impedes improved commu-
nication. Mexico fails to insist on lateral cooperation
from the workgroups, and Border XXI activities have not
been integrated in those of U.S. border entities and insti-
tutions.
GENERAL PENDING OR ABSENT THEMES
The Framework Document establishes good intended
achievements, but little detail in terms of goals, time
frames for their achievement, responsibilities, and
resources. That is, general objectives for each work-
group are established, but the program does not iden-
tify specific milestones to measure progress toward
achievements. In this sense, the objectives lacked a
numerical base to measure the level of commitment the
program expected from each workgroup, thereby limit-
ing possibilities for monitoring and evaluation. This was
not the case for the Water Workgroup, which established
goals and shared them with the public.
The 1997 environmental indicators established a
baseline for measuring the condition of the environment,
natural resources, and the program's environmental man-
agement, but the indicators were not extrapolated to
project goals for the year 2000.
From the Mexican side, the problems discussed pre-
viously were the result of a lack of budget for the pro-
gram. Each workgroup operated on generic resources
appropriated to its associated entity, without budget allo-
cations labeled ad hoc. This fault prevented direct assign-
ment of resources to the program on an annual basis.
In Mexico, Border XXI did not promote special col-
laboration with indigenous peoples, as occurred in the
United States. These groups represent an important
voice that should be consulted for border environmen-
tal management.
Border XXI also failed to significantly include and
involve the private sector in its operation. The council
recognized a few isolated group activities, particularly with
the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance and Pollu-
tion Prevention Workgroups, but the program did not reach
representative organizations.
Certain Mexican and U.S. coastal resources in the
border region have not been addressed by the program.
Guidelines with respect to marine resources do appear
in the Border XXI program; however, no projects or spe-
cific actions have been assigned.
Border XXI has not been able to link scientific research
projects under way in border area universities and research
institutes to its environmental management activities.
m\
ADDENDUM 2 - CCDS EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BORDER XXI PROGRAM
-------
------- |