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 -•!,
*.ฃ  r
                                                                               ,4


-------
U.S.-Mexico  Border XXI Program:  Progress  Report 1996-2000
                   THE PURPOSE
           OF THE PROGRESS REPORT
                                  JH,     _*  U-          >ป
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
งงT        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
    ซ    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.

ป - ~ ~              BORDER XXI
kซ* -   -         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  "
ฃ*                  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
     AreซT/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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•




•
•
•





•
•
•
•
ซ


•


•
_ •

•
•
•
•

^




•

•
•
. •

•
•
•
•
•







•

•
•
•

•
•
•
*
~





•

•
•
•
•
ป
•
•
•
•
-

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 (0ซ
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 thฃ 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"Bedanceง 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
                                                                   &  ง
                                                                   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  ง
                           01 o> .o>  en o>
                                Q.
                                UJ
                                co
                                   O Z  Q  T

                                      Month
                                            a:

                                           .%
                                                        z  =J
ง• 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 ซ 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 ซ 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.
 Tttซ 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 •
•• .-.-•.. : / '-'.--. ฐ : .' ' . '
-:• •••'." •••:-.' •". - " .. -" • 2 .-;;•.'• ' •
..."'•'"•'.'• ."•'.: 6" - - '. ' , ••
- :''. \ ..V •',•:• : -.•;:'•• •'ซ'. '-..--' ;' •.' '
                                                                                                     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. [
ป 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';'";
' -. -,..-,•: -^ ,.>
• .-• :ฐ
. ' ' • . 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.
                                                            ซS== *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,
                                                                                   ,ป  Mi*ซ;
                                                         .JfSgTv^-
                                                       fc, *„,<>*• ""
                                              .
                                                                -^41-Wfcv, -     i
                                                             ^"       ''*'
, II**-  -,
    ซ **- ^ ^T-E "Ba,^
^1  iCSJSf^* -

     — JJ~ tW-**^
     ^Sfj r*JI 'Was^SS t

 -   -v -   ^jii


             t*^^.

                                                   ,ซ^-^   f

                                               &f - *^Uf4r*5t
                                                ?-,'4ซfcฎsr^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
        (sซe 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"
ซ 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,งntefgg^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
$2,221,685ฐ
                    $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.
                                                                       ซ,   *<

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 Fซ a more, detailed dfseriptibn of the, objectives, please refer;td,
 that 'rip, = '• .1	,;"".,!:  ">:! asM*1':!1 •; ;'."'.."' • '	.<.' •'  ' '.' j  !|! "' ; 4*1'";' 'f '• i ปi'!;
 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.
            ซ 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 (SEฐMARNAP,
  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.
 ป 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
            ^ ซ  —                                     ^
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
               ซAuthorized 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.
 Thซ 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   *         rป              -"  -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.
  ป 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.
        ง>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  ซ=                    ^         ^      ^
 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   ป.ซป


-------
                      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-   ฃ+
     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
                                                                                                             {ฃ••'"

-------
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* •**~'frฐ'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.
                                                                                                         eฃฃ 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 ' ป•';;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 ป ,
                        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.

-------
*)ซซ

-------
                          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 ซ   - \, ^S '
                                                        $ si?

-------
                                                                        •*-* S-  a *iซ .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\'ซ V' ^?  ?"ป ^, ( lt, ซVJ ,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. Josง 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
                                                               ซT  " " *

-------
                         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.
                                                                                                              ฃ==-.
 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.
                                                                                                             ซS5
                                                                                                             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             ป     \ \  \ 4         \  t

-------
           w  M ^Jf *
                             \       \

                                 .ซป-<>
US?      M*

                                                     ,        '   "  " J  V,







                                                                  ซ  '!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,^   •        „

                                        '                "
    *   *,*ป     ^  * j   '    A ^   S **•  ** "*    ^

;  -, V,/                                ;C^
              ^^ -4-       * * \ ,/^lAtuf^ "^^f S •*  *
            ssrs^^^.*'1^^-1  ^  ^ Vv^K'4^rt^'a!    /',    "     \ฃi^^^i^W%ii^>  lW
                      ^ „ ^^.'"/x.f.S "v   ,  '     ป*'ป>

      ^
                         '                     ^

-------


-------
                  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
'fซ:\
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

-------
                                                            ซit 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

             ^       *  ซ   ปป• \*      v vft '^\         ',ปnutซซ
                                         ''ปn?H^"t i*V., ..  *
                                              *f
                                                             r

                                                                  ซ• ^

-------

ซ it  ——t
                                   /%
                                          i '* ,
                   * A?

                                          I -
                                                  (j.tt  m A  u
                                                 w-v ,*  v?u ^ %v
                         : MMMHImrl,^   * w^^^afiJj-""^*"

                      •%i* s<* - r~. ^^!!||ปiiซ

                 ,* • ^yr" * ,A  v     1 ,  ^<ซ  v*

                  ป-%„  "*%U  v  >T  ,.ซซซ

                                      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'%ปn.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-iWOTป?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  >•' ซ ^| HnHvM\,w \4 /AxV^HWKt
'i   ^ii  v   i   ^  V iiป, -t, ,H '            i i                v     (>,,?, vซ ..

       v1   u     '  ! \,\v,  ;v  .^\               '      v^'t   >

     ,'ซ)'>'<>"   H   '1>*ปM V ^   „   U  '  * >           .  , j  ,  V  (f

  •  >  - <    >  \  i      '  '^ซ,ปvป  jy^^VfvvNv., --  }'  .4\ป \;V  ^^*nป?l-r  ^" '  '^l  vi iป'     'Syttt4wte.ปl

                         1 "Jf               ^           ,       *  y^^  ปHV  < 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'  'ฃa?  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
           . .,,„	„	..	.„_.	_.,	=_„_,—„,„—ซ.*-,	,-*,,..,.,	^~^~ซ*H,r^--rr~^7ป-"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
                                                          ,*ฃฃฃ-
                          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. ป"
                                                                                      •ป  '
                                    ,,*

-------
                         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 ซ• ^ ^ ?  :;-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,,.™,™,,-^,-,v1mซ™

-------
                                                                                 -V* '
                          U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress  Report  1996-2000
                                                      "ฃ•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

-------
                                                                                        !&*ป
                         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

-------

-------