State of the Border Region
50 100 150 200 Miles
I I I I
I I
100 200 300 Kilometers
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
Indicators Report 2005
&ERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
_
SECRETARY DE
MEDIO AMBIENTE Y
-------
EPA-160-R-06-001
December 2006
t>
Z
.0*
SECRETARiA DE
MEDIO AWtBIENTE Y
Note from the National Coordinators and Border Indicators Task Force Co-chairs
With State of the Border Region, we are pleased to provide the first public release of Border 2012
indicators. This report reflects a commitment by the United States and Mexico to develop a set
of rigorous, high-quality indicators to increase awareness of border environmental and health
conditions and to measure progress toward goals established by the Border 2012 program in
2003. This report represents a great deal of collaborative effort and we thank everyone involved
for their dedication to this process. We look forward to continuing this collaboration in the
ongoing effort to improve the quality, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of border indicators as
an integral component of the shared goal of improving border environmental conditions.
Jerry Clifford
National Coordinator, U.S.
Maria Teresa Bandala
National Coordinator, Mexico
Steve Young
BITF Co-Chair, U.S.
Armando Yanez
BITF Co-chair, Mexico
-------
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the support of all Border 2012 partners that participated in the development
of this report. Special acknowledgment goes to Salvador Sanchez, former Border Indicators
Task Force Co-chair in Mexico, for his leadership in getting the indicators effort off the ground
and to Sandra Duque - Office of Environmental Information, EPA - and Iris Jimenez - Office
of Environmental Information and Statistics, SEMARNAT - for facilitating and managing the
development of a binational indicators report.
Special acknowledgment also to the Border Indicators Task Force members, EPA and
SEMARNAT program and border regional offices, Border 2012 coordinating bodies (Regional
Border-wide Workgroups and Policy Fora), the Native American Environmental Protection
Coalition, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, Mexico's Ministry of Health (Salud), the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Pan American Health Organization-Border
Field Office, the Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy, and the U.S.
Geological Survey for their assistance in developing this publication.
.
Iff?
ill
Street paving with an asphalt and crumb rubber mix,
Ciudad Juarez
National Coordinators Meeting 2005,
Baja California
*Tfals report Is available at the Border 2012 web site: www.epa.gov/border2012/ or
www.semarnat.gob.mx/UCAI/frontera2012/.
For more information about this publication or to submit comments to help improve future
editions, please contact us.
EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Aw, NW (MC 2842T)
DC
[T] 202 10
[F] 202
Email: Borderjndicators@epa.gov
1
SEMARNAT, Direction de
Ambiental,
Cortinez 4209, en la Montana.
DP. 14210
[T]
[F]
Email: fronteralO 12@semarnat.gob .mx
12/
11
-------
Report Overview 1
U.S.-Mexico Border Region 4
Water 6
Air 9
Land 12
Emergency Preparedness and Response 15
Enforcement and Compliance 17
About the Indicator Development Process 20
San Antonio Neciia indigenous community,
Baja California
Big Bend National Park, Texas
Scrap tire pile, Ciudad Juarez
ill
-------
the
The purpose of the State of the Border Region Indicators Report is to inform the border
communities and stakeholders about the state of the environment and progress made under the
Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program. The six goals of Border 2012 are outlined
in the program's Framework Document, signed on April 4, 2003. Thus, where appropriate and
feasible, 2003 is used as the baseline year. This report presents available information to aid in
understanding the status of the region, identifying data f
gaps, and better preparing policy makers to address the
needs of the communities they serve.
This report incorporates environmental and public health
information in the corresponding Border 2012 media
and program sections: Water, Air, Land, Emergency
Preparedness and Response, and Enforcement and
Compliance. The indicator information is presented
in an easy to understand format with brief data source
information below each indicator. Complete underlying
data and details are available on-line.1
1. Reduce
2. air pollution
3. Reduce
4. Improve environmental health
5. Reduce to chemicals and
6. Improve environmental
performance
NOTE: Given the challenges involved in developing indicators for the border region, this initial report
presents information on a limited number of indicators, representing specific objectives under each goal.
As data comparability improves among the multiple data sources and data availability increases for the
region, future reports will continue to improve upon the content and detail of this effort. This report is also
intended to complement the information presented in the Implementation and Mid-Term Report: 2007.
2012:a
Border 2012 is a ten-year cooperative program designed "to protect the
environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region,
consistent with the principles of sustainable development." Federal, state,
tribal and local institutions and agencies collaboratively work to produce
prioritized and sustained actions that consider the needs of the border
communities. The actions implemented under Border 2012 are guided
through a series of results-oriented goals and objectives, and measured by
environmental and performance indicators.
Border 2012 is the latest cooperative initiative implemented under the 1983
La Paz Agreement and builds upon the previous efforts, particularly Border
XXI, which marked the first binational attempt to develop
environmental indicators.2 More information about the Border 2012
program is available at the Border 2012 Web site.
La Paz
Agreement
1983
Border
Environmental Plan for
U.S.-Mexico Border
Area
1992
Stale of the Border Region
1 Available at the Border 2012 Web site:
U.S.-Mexico Environmental Indicators 1997 and a Summary of
- Selected Environmental Indicators, December 2000.
-------
In cooperation with the various entities operating
under the Border 2012 program, the Border
Indicators Task Force (BITF) selects and develops
environmental and performance indicators to
communicate important information about the
border region and to evaluate progress towards
meeting Program goals and objectives.
Each of the indicators presented in this report
is classified according to the Driving Forces-
Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)
Framework.
DPSIR is based on the idea that Driving Forces
such as socioeconomic factors lead to natural or
human-induced Pressures, which lead to a State,
which generates Impacts (sub-divided into Exposure
and Effect) that evoke Reponses. The Response
compartment feeds back into every other
compartment, showing that interventions can
occur at each point along the causal spectrum. For
more information see the Strategy for Indicator
Development.
Definitions
are a or
a set of data
the
in a way Is for
specifically:
the region's and
conditions.
or
Performance indicators
environmental
measures.
DPSIR Framework
/Health-Based \
\ / Environmental \
*j[ Indicators only •
;H,- \
Effect V !
A representative, integrated set of
binational indicators helps to describe
the system, increasing understanding of
the U.S.-Mexico border region, assisting
in highlighting data gaps, and providing
a basis on which to make well informed
decisions. The BITF aspires to improve and
expand upon the 23 indicators presented in
this initial report.
Sate q/'//?e Border Region
2005
-------
What are In report?
The report begins by presenting general information about border region characteristics such
as population, demographics, language, trade, and biodiversity. This introduction leads to five
report sections that present indicators aligned to specific Program goals and objectives (see text
box). The report presents binational, border-wide indicators whenever possible. In this regard,
the intent of the report is to aid in identifying gaps in order to work towards acquiring more
comparable data, thus enabling the development of more meaningful indicators. These indicators
together represent the initial set of border indicators that will continue to be refined and expanded
over time.
U.S.- Mexico Border Region
1. Population Projections for the Border Region
2. Native American Population in the U.S. Side of the Border Region
3. Languages Spoken at Home in the U.S. Side of the Border Region
4. U.S. - Mexico Trade
Water
5. of Households in the Border with Access to Piped Drinking Within the House
6. in the
Air
7. Number of Days Exceeding Air Quality in Monitoring
8, in the
9, (PM10) in the
10, of Physician in
Land
11. Tire in the
12, Use in the
13, Number of Farmworkers Trained in Use in the U.S. of the Border
14. Cumulative Number of Farmworkers Trained in Pesticide Use in the Region
Emergency Preparedness
15, Number of Emergency Incident Notifications in the U.S. of the Border Received by NRC
16. Number of Emergency Incident Notifications in the Mexican of the Region
by COATEA
17, Progression of Signed City Plans
18. Facilities in the U.S. Side of the
19, Number of Enforcement Actions in the U.S. Side of the Border Region
20. Inspection for Facilities in the of the
21. Pollution Reduction Actions in the U.S. Side of the Border
22. Number of Inspections of Facilities in the
23, in Number and Dollar Value in the U.S. of the Border
Note: Environmental public health are included in the corresponding
Stale of the Border Region
2005
-------
The U.S.-Mexico border region, as defined by the 1983 La Paz Agreement, is the area within 100
kilometers (about 62.5 miles) on either side of the international border and extends 3,141 km
(1,952 miles) from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. The border region is comprised of
10 states (4 U.S. and 6 Mexican) and 26 U.S. tribes.
Originally, the cooperative initiatives
implemented under the La Paz
Agreement recognized 14 paired,
inter-dependent "sister cities".
However, the border region now
widely recognizes 15. Ninety percent
of the border population resides in
these sister cities. Population has
grown rapidly in the border region
to nearly 13 million people in 2005
from 6.9 million in 1980. From 1990
to 2000, the rate of population growth
in the border region was over two
times that observed for either country
nationwide.
Figure 1 , Population Projections for the Border Region
25
"w"
o
;-..
1 20
c
.2
JS
o. 15
o
a,
in
— High ^23,4
— Medium x^'
™™ Low ****
,-*'*"* „,,.-" 18.5
^******* „,-",-"•"""""
^•*'*S--'''''''' „_———— 15-9
,i,—
2005 2010 2015 2020
Note: Population projections are based on 93 border counties
and municipalities located immediately adjacent to the border.
Source: J, Peach and J, Williams, 2003, "Population Dynamics of the U,S,-fy1exican Border
Region," Unpublished, forthcoming SCERP Monograph, San Diego: SOERP/SDSU Press,
The remaining ten percent of the border population resides in rural areas. A major challenge
will be providing services to isolated rural populations, colonias (unincorporated communities
or settlements in rural areas as well as adjacent to cities and towns), and to tribal and indigenous
communities, which may have substandard housing and unsafe drinking water or wastewater
systems.
Figure 2. Native American Population in the
U.S. of the Border Region, 2000
(Percent)
100
80
60
40
20
80,792
(1.23%)
. 28,029
(0.95%)
33,589
(2.85%)
6,990
(2.34%)
12.184
(0.57%)
California Arizona New Mexico Texas
Total
In 2000, Native Americans comprised 1.23%
of the total U.S. border region population and
were predominantly located in California and
Arizona. On the Mexican side of the border
region, there are several indigenous peoples,
such as Papagos, Kikapues, Cochini, Cucapa,
Kiliwa, Kumiai, and Pai Pai, some of which
share extensive family and cultural ties to U.S.
tribes.
Sate q/'//?e Border Region
2005
-------
The U.S.-Mexico border region
is characterized by many
social, economic, and political
contrasts between the people
who share the natural resources
of the area.
Languages spoken at home
in the U.S. side of the border
region are predominantly
English. The exception is
Texas where 78% of the border
population speaks Spanish and
42.6% of this population is bilingual.
Trade between the U.S. and Mexico has
been substantially increasing over the
past 10 years. This economic activity is
especially associated with the growth of
the border industry, which has furthered
the exchange of products, leading
to increased border truck crossings.
Consequently, trade can contribute
to elevated vehicular emissions and
reduced air quality for residents on both
sides of the border.
\horces
Figure 3. Languages Spoken at Home in the U.S. Side
of the Border Region, 2000
10%
"™'5lipc —
" •"" 65%
California
English Only
^*S-- 69%
Arizona
Only i
27% ...2% 42«4.-4% 21%
y ^
18V"«~-=- 53% ^"iniiii 36%
New Mexico Texas
Bilingual (English & Spanish) Other
Source: U.S. Census. 2000. tK:rt:i.:;»-!:s"»,s ;;;>v
Driving^
200
_ 150
05
_O
» 100
«>
zi
50
0
- mm
~~
-
vi
Figure 4. U.S. - Mexico Trade ^^
Exports from Mexico to U.S.
Exports from U.S. to Mexico
i
1
|
F1
::; I
1
; I
, : 1
: :; i
|: I I
ri
1
.—,
1 :; 1
1
1994 1995 1997 1998 2000 2001 2003 2004
Source: TradeStaEs Express iM Home. r:;e.e,-:r.-™t e?v
in the
Feur Primary Tjpes ef Habitat
Sonoran Desert
California coastal sage Sc eliapairal
Chitmahuan Desert
Tamaiilipan taezquital
10 Globally Endangered Species
BluntHotGssd leopard lizard (Gam bslia silo)
San Estebaa Island mouse (femmyscta stephani)
Coacliella l%11ey Frmge-toed lizaixl (Lrma mornafaj
Marbled morrelet (Brachyramphus tnannoratus)
Brj7aat's wctctdrat {Nsotoma bryanti)
Ashy Stormpetrel (Oceanodrotsa hamachma)
Mexiean long-nosed bat (Leptonyctgris nivalis)
Worthen's spairow (Spizetia warthent)
Coahuilan box turtle (Tgrr&p&ne coahuila)
Black-spotted newt {Notophtfialnms meridionatii)
Two Critically Endangered Speciei
Island gray fox (Uroey&n litt&ralts)
Flat-headed myata (Myoiis plantceps)
Somce: 2004. IOCM R»d Lilt ofTlnBatiinedSp»ci»i. iooiirHiliitciijj,
In the border region, increasing trade is also
compounded by increasing population, production,
and unplanned city expansion, which lead to greater
environmental effects. This suggests that many border
residents may be subject to unhealthy air, contaminated
water, and lack of waste management services.
The U.S.-Mexico border region is also characterized
by vast biological diversity, including many rare and
locally distinct species. According to the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN), four primary types of habitat
compose most of the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Within these habitats there are 2,143 animal species, of
which ten are listed as globally endangered species and
two are critically endangered.
iS'/a/e of the Border Region
2005
-------
Population and industrial growth along the border have created large demands for safe drinking
water. Water is an extremely limited resource in this primarily arid region, further emphasizing
the need to protect it through such means as adequate infrastructure and efficient and responsible
use.
Do border have to drinking water?
L°S^!t!;l Water utilities test the drinking water before, during, and as it leaves the treatment plant
as well as out in the distribution system to ensure that water reaching the households is safe to
drink. In some areas, drinking water is not piped into the house, but is made available at a yard
tap on the lot or nearby at a communal watering point. Hauled drinking water, even if supplied
by a safe public water system, is susceptible to contamination during transport and storage at
the house. Binational efforts in the border region seek to measure and improve access to safe
drinking water by providing piped drinking water within the house.
Figure 5. Percentage of Households in the Border Region
with Access to Piped Drinking Water Within the House, 2000
Imperial San Diego
Cameron Hidalgo Webb
Valverde Maverick
Presidio El Pa'
/
uuis Rio Nogates Juarez
Colorado
\82^ Priela *»
"X X ""X
O
Source: U.S. Census. INEGI (institute Naeional de Estactstlea Geographia e inform), 2000.
Based on each country's national census, in 2000, the percentage of households with access to
piped drinking water within the house was 93% or higher in U.S. border communities. Access in
Mexican communities ranged from 61% in Matamoros to 84% in Piedras Negras.
Mexico's National Water Commission (CONAGUA) defines "access" to drinking water as
households that obtain drinking water within the house, on their lot, or from a public water
intake or hydrant. Using this definition, the percentage of households with access to drinking
water in 2000 was 94%. The percentages for the border region of each state were 92% in Baja
California, 94% in Sonora, 94% in Chihuahua, 96% in Coahuila, 92% in Nuevo Leon, and 96%
in Tamaulipas. x
State of the Border Region
2005
-------
Do border communities have wastewater collection treatment
services?
L—!'to* uj Access to adequate wastewater collection and treatment services in the border region
is important as it prevents adverse effects to human health from exposure to excreta and the
disease-causing microorganisms that it contains. The collection and treatment of wastewater is
also significant as it prevents discharge of untreated waters to surface water and groundwater,
preventing detrimental effects on human health and the environment.
In 2000, the percentage of U.S. households with access to wastewater collection and treatment
services was 94% or higher. In the Mexican side of the border, the census only reports
households with access to wastewater collection services and does not indicate whether the
wastewater collected is treated. CONAGUA estimates that in 2000 only 38% of all wastewater
collected received treatment.3
Figure 6. Wastewater Services in the Border Region, 2000
U.S. Households with Access to W&stewater Collection
and Treatment Services
Imperial San Diego Cachise Sarta Cruz
Dona Ana Luna
Cameron Hidalgo \Afebb
Valverde Maverick
Presidio El Pa;
i,,,.,•„-,.>.
Qiy {jip
Mexican Tijuana
Mexican Households with Access
to Wastewater Collection
(Data do not indicate whether wastewater is treated)
* 90%
Acuna f(iedras
Negras
Source: U.S. Census. 1NEGI (institute Naciona! cte Estadstlca Geografia e inform). 2000.
Nuevo
Laredo
CONAGUA defines wastewater collection service as the percentage of people in houses
connected to the public wastewater network or a septic tank. Using this definition, 82% of the
population had wastewater collection service. The percentages for the border region of each
state were 80% in Baja California, 84% in Sonora, 88% in Chihuahua, 76% in Coahuila, 75%
in Nuevo Leon, and 79% in Tamaulipas. These percentages do not reflect how much of the
wastewater collected is actually treated.
For more information on binational water infrastructure projects see
www.nadb.org/projects/projportfolio.html.
3 CONAGUA, 2000. "Estrategias de Gran Vision para el Abastecimiento y
Manejo del Agua on Ciudadcs y Cucncas do la Fronlcra Node en cl
Periodo 1999-2025"
Stale of the Border Region
-------
Are there problems possibly with water quality?
j oy«iw4^ Many health problems are associated with poor water quality and insufficient quantity.
While many diseases are caused by direct ingestion of contaminated water, they can also
be spread through inadequate hygiene and the contamination of food. The idea of multiple
exposures was recognized in the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's 2006 report on
Children's Health, which expressed the need for better surveillance and tracking systems to be
able to distinguish between diseases related to water-based exposures and to those caused by
food exposures.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that some of the more
common diseases that can be spread through contaminated water are cryptosporidiosis,
Escherichia coli infection, giardiasis, viral Hepatitis A, cholera, shigellosis, salmonellosis, and
typhoid fever.4 A range of syndromes, including acute dehydrating diarrhea and prolonged
febrile illness with abdominal symptoms, are associated with these diseases. The CDC reports
that significant decreases over the last decade in the incidence of cholera and giardia among
children in Mexico may be attributed to advances in the availability of wastewater infrastructure
and pre-treatment of drinking water.5
However, in the U.S.-Mexico border region there are limitations and differences between
definitions and reporting requirements, as well as timely access to the data. Additionally, the
available data may not accurately represent the level of disease in the border region population
due to differing behavioral patterns of seeking medical care when sick. For these reasons, the
indicator on waterborne diseases is still being developed.
Recognizing that contaminated drinking water
sources and recreational waters present significant
health risks to the public, EPA and SEMARNAT
continue to work, towards increasing the collection
and treatment of wastewater and providing access
to safe drinking water to all border residents.
For more information on Environmental Health see
www.epa.gov/ehwg/proj ectsjublications.html or
contact your state's department of health.
In addition to improvements in infrastructure, health
education can be an effective tool to improving infectious
diseases, In the US-Mexico border region. the "Agua
para beber** project Focuses on safe hygiene, water
purification, and practices as of solving
and avoiding drinking water-related health problems.
Promotoras also distribute low-cost, 5-gallon. drinking
water containers and bilingual educational materials,
For more information:
w"w"B,'inigraiitcliaician.org./_resource&;safe_
-------
Air
Air quality is a major concern throughout the border region. Pollutants from a number of sources
including motor vehicles, power plants and industrial facilities, agricultural operations, dust
from unpaved roads, and open burning of trash affect urban and regional air quality in the border
region.
What is the quality of the air?
. quaiity standards are set to protect people from potential harmful exposures to air
pollutants. The quality of the air can be inferred by the number of days that a standard is
exceeded within a monitored area. Data are presented for five regional monitoring areas with
monitors located on both sides of the border. The most persistent and pervasive pollutants found
in the sister cities are ozone and paniculate matter (PM10), which is why these are highlighted.
Tijuana/San Diego
Negates/ Negates
Lower Rio Grande valley
Mexicali/ Imperial valley
Source: U.S. EPAAir Quality System (AQSj Database. The U.S. and Mexico have the same ozone standard but different PMl!}~24 hour average standard. The
number of days any one monitor exceeded the air quaiity standards is based on the binationai 8-hour standard for ozone (0.08 ppm) and the 24-hour U.S.
standard for PMV1 {150 ug/mj). *-" indicates noexceedance or 'was not measured'.
Based on the analysis of the number of days exceeding the ozone and PM1() standards, air
quality varies geographically. The regions of Tijuana/San Diego and Mexicali/Imperial Valley
had the highest number of days exceeding the ozone standard. The regions of Mexicali/Imperial
Valley and Ciudad Juarez/El Paso had the highest number of days exceeding the PM standard.
In contrast, Nogales/Nogales and the Lower Rio Grande Valley had better air quality with only a
few days where standards were exceeded over a five year period.
Stale of the Border Region
2005
-------
What is in the air?
i o^ecmreiij pouutanf;S ^^ are released into the air from emission sources may stay in the
environment for hours or even years, in a stable form or transformed into other compounds.
They can remain near the point of release, move long distances by wind, or transfer to other
environmental media, resulting in soil or water pollution. The amount of pollutants emitted,
pollutant properties, and atmospheric conditions influence pollutant levels and distribution in the
atmosphere, which are typically measured as concentrations.
Figure 8, Ozone Concentrations* in the Border Region
:•: Tijuana/ San
2001 2002 2003 2004
^Average of 4th highest value over three years
Source: EPAWrQua!Hy%sietra (AGS) Database,
Fi
300
200
E
S>
100
0
^Iftsa
gure 9. PM10 Concentrations* in the Border Region
*---* * "- -+—.-... ^. .-,!
* •"H""*"""^ ^"""""•*- «~«m c iucta d J us rez/ES Pa so
g $ ^Tluana/San Dteao
t i t i i
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
*Thrss year average of annual mean concentrations at highest site
Source; EPS Air Guaiiiy Sptems £AGS) Database,
From 2001 to 2005, ozone concentrations
remained above the binational standard of
0.08 ppm in Mexicali/Imperial Valley and
Tijuana/San Diego. The Ciudad Juarez/
El Paso air shed improved, decreasing
below the standard as of 2004. Ozone
concentrations were lower than the standard
in Nogales/Nogales and in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley.
During the same time frame, PM1Q
concentrations were lower than the
binational standard of 50 (ig/m3 in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley. Concentrations
in the other four monitoring areas exceeded
the standard with the highest concentrations
observed in the Mexicali/Imperial
Valley.
Selected Air
(Oj)
Ozone is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of
smog formed through complex chemical reactions between
preeiiMor emissions of volatile compound.! (VOC)
oxides of nitrogen (NO,,) in the presence of sunlight. These
pollutants are emitted by transportation and industrial sources,
Oj is reactive and tissue, reduces function.
and increases sensitivity to other irritants.
8 = (U.S.
Matter (PM)
Particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or
(PMJft) consists of ground geologic material entrained into the air by
agricultural processes, unpaged roadways, quarry and cement
manufacturing. Fine PM (diameter of 2,5 microns or less) or PM, ,
consists of sulfates, nitrates, other gases, soot and finer ground geologic
materials. Exposure to PM is a major human health concern including
effects on breathing, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
and premature death.
= 50 (U,S,
24-Hour Average = 150 (U.S.) 120 {tg/iii1 (Mexico)
For more information on U.S.-Mesdco Air Qualify and other air pollutants see www.cpa,gm'rH/tfs
-------
Are there problems possibly with air quality?
L—e~h!..4iJ While air quality standards provide a platform to understand current air quality
conditions, it is important to understand the impacts of air pollution on human health. Long-
term exposure to elevated air pollution is associated with diminished lung function and
cardiovascular disease. Vulnerable groups (children, the sick, and the elderly) are more likely
to suffer ill effects. A number of epidemiologic studies have linked changes in air pollutant
concentrations with increased risk of pneumonia, respiratory infections, and exacerbation of
asthma. For example, evidence indicates that exposure to vehicle emissions aggravates or
triggers asthmatic symptoms and airway reactivity. Asthma is a complex disease and multiple
factors are implicated in the development and exacerbation of this disease. Thus, at this time it is
not possible to directly relate air pollution to the onset of asthma.
Despite an abundance of information
regarding asthma prevalence, data are
not reported in a standardized format.
Reporting mechanisms and disease
definitions vary considerably between
border states and countries, limiting the
ability to make comparisons.
Figure 10. Prevalence of Physician-Diagnosed
Asthma in Calexico/Mexicali, 2001
26.5%
6-7 years
Sample size (N=37)
13-14 years
Source: Department of Heaith and Human Services. 2001. U.S.-Mexieo Border
Enwonmentai Health Surveillance Demonstrations Phase Two. September 2001.
The data shown in this graph represent
a small sample study of school aged
children to assess the prevalence of
asthma diagnosis within one sister city
pair. However, asthma may result from
a combination of air quality and other
contributing factors.
For more information on U.S.-Mexico air quality see www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/org.htmtfair
and for Environmental Health information see www.epa.gov/ehwg/projectsjublications.html.
Stale of the Border Region
2005
11
-------
Land absorbs contaminants from the air, water, and human/industrial activities that can alter
the condition of the land. For instance, land is affected by construction, transport, agriculture
and pesticide use, housing, and unplanned development. Pressing concerns of the Border 2012
program are the presence of tire piles and the use of pesticides along the border region, for they
pose both environmental and health problems.
Are the waste tire up?
mr.:;j Throughout the border region, millions of scrap tires have accumulated in several waste
tire piles. Composed of tires from both Mexico and the U.S., the piles tend to result from a
robust market for partially used tires. The exact number of tires at some locations is difficult to
estimate. Border 2012 is developing a U.S.-Mexico Border Scrap Tire Integrated Management
Initiative to manage scrap tires within a sustainable development vision. The Program is
focusing on clean-up at three of the largest piles in Mexico (INNOR, El Centinela, and Ciudad
Juarez) as their relative size and proximity to more densely populated areas increases the risks to
human health and the environment.
B Centlnella INNOR Uanset
77% 100%
(1,200,000) (425.000) (400,000)
A 1
Nog ales
re? o% (i5o,ooo)
Reynosa
ivA 0% f300-000)
IT' Matamoros ^-'
'-- 0% (600,000) ?iS
j_
i 1 Clean-up completed
i—i Clean-up in progress
i—i Future clean-up expected
* Estimates on original number of tires are not available.
The number of tires removed is shown.
Source: SEMARNAT. Subsecretaria de Fomento y Normatividad Ambiental, 2006.
Tire piles create ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rodents, and other vectors of disease,
which leads to a potential increase in the incidence of malaria, dengue fever, and encephalitis
diseases such as West Nile Virus. Further, tire pile fires are difficult to extinguish and can burn
for months, emitting noxious fumes and generating liquid wastes that contaminate soil,
groundwater, and surface water.
12
Sate q/'//?e Border Region
2005
-------
Through the combined efforts of EPA, SEMARNAT, regional waste task forces, affected states,
and tribes, tire piles are being cleaned up. As of December 2005, over two million tires had
been removed from the border region. This includes the complete clean-up of the FNNOR tire
pile, resulting in the removal of 425,000 tires. In addition to focusing on the largest tire piles,
clean-up efforts are also ongoing at several smaller sites. For example, the Pala Band of Mission
Indians, with assistance from the California Integrated Waste Management Board, removed
34,000 tires from their reservation. Removed tires are being put to productive uses as part of
Border 2012's commitment to recycling and reuse. They are used in cement kilns as fuel, in
asphalt as crumb rubber, and in erosion control embankments in bales, among other creative
uses.
Are farm workers trained on safety?
0bJ!(*!!l3 Communities along the border are confronted with a host of environmental problems,
including pollution from agricultural activities. Border residents may suffer health problems
related to environmental factors including the improper management of toxics, hazardous and
solid wastes, and pesticides.
Figure 12. Amount of Pesticide Use in the Border Region, 2000-2003
This map appears to show significant variation in the amount of pesticides used in the border
region. However, it may not be completely representative of the situation, as data were difficult
to collect and often lacking due to reporting practices. For example, data were often lacking for
Texas and Mexican states.
Stale of the Border Region
2005
13
-------
Pesticide exposure can cause a variety of occupational illnesses in farm workers, including eye
injuries, cancer, respiratory illnesses, and dermatitis. Proper training in pesticide handling and
use results in the protection of workers and their families from potential exposures and adverse
health effects.
Both the U.S. and Mexico have
instituted various programs to train
workers and instructors in the safe
handling of pesticides. In the U.S.
side of the border region, 26,760 farm
workers were trained from 2003 to
2005 with the majority in California.
Data are based on attendance at
training sessions in several border
cities.
In Mexico, the Programa National
Contra Los Riesgos par el llso De
Plaguicidas conducts training courses
throughout the country. In 2004,
courses were provided in Ensenada
and Mexicali, training a total of 850
workers and 73 trainers (600 workers
and 38 trainers in Ensenada and 250
workers and 35 trainers in Mexicali).
The persons attending these training
sessions include field workers,
growers, and handlers, pest control
advisors, employees of pesticide
distributors, and members of the
public.
Since 2003, a total of 27,683
farmworkers were trained in the U.S.-
Mexico border region. As the Border
2012 goal is to train 36,000 farmers,
this sum represents 76.9% of the goal.
Figure 13. Number of Farmworkers Trained in Safe Pesticide.
Use in the U.S. Side of the Border Region, 2003-2005
14|
1012004
12
10
il
S3i '
California Arizona New yexico Texas
"-" indicates no data reported
Total
Source: Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs/AmeriCorps and Proteus (California,
Arizona. & New Mexico data), and the Texas Department of Agriculture {Texas data).
Figure 14. Cumulative Number of Farmworkers Trained
in Safe Pesticide Use in the Border Region, 2003-2005 (Respons
40
35
to 30
-a
-------
Preparing for a possible environmental or hazardous emergency improves the probability of
adequately responding to incidents and protecting the environment and public from exposure to
harmful contaminants and serious environmental or health impacts.
The U.S.-Mexico Joint Response Team (JRT), established by the La Paz Agreement, is composed
of representatives from U.S. and Mexico federal, state and local agencies responsible for
emergency prevention, preparedness, and response in the border region. The JRT developed a
Joint Contingency Plan (JCP) that established a federal mechanism for cooperation for
responding effectively to polluting incidents that may pose a significant threat to both countries
or affect one to an extent that justifies a request for assistance. The first JCP was issued in 1988,
revised in 1999, and is currently being updated.
Is an advisory communication for the border region?
A notification system was
established as part of the JCP. Any actual
or threatened incident involving releases of
contaminants from non-mobile machinery,
refineries, manufacturing plants, and other
fixed facilities that has the potential to affect
the other country is reported.
Notifications are received by the National
Response Center (NRC) in the U.S. and
the National Communications Center
(CENACOM) in Mexico. Both centers run
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In Mexico,
the Center for Environmental Emergencies
(CO ATE A), of the Federal Attorney
General for Environmental Protection
(PROFEPA) also receives notifications and
runs from 9-6 pm Monday-Friday. In the
near future, COATEA will also be operating
24 hours a day.
Upon receipt, notifications are responded to
in an appropriate manner through the
execution of local response plans (Sister
City Plans) and the U.S.-Mexico Joint
Contingency Plan.
Figure 15. Number of incident Notifications in the
U.S. Side of the Border Region Received by NRC (Response)
HI California Ba New Mexico
I I Arizona I 3 Texas
Figure 16. Number of Incident Notifications in the
Mexican Side of the Border Region Received by COATEA (Response)
JJ Baja California Q chihuahua [j| Nuevo Leon
|_| Sonora Fl Coahuila H Tamaulipas
Source: Ceniro de Grientacien para Is Ale
icidn de Em
Notification
rgsnciss Ambientales. PROFEPA. 2005.
received by CENACOM are unavailable.
Stale of the Border Region
2005
15
-------
Do border have an emergency plan?
The JCP recognizes
that all hazardous materials
incidents and/or emergencies
affect the local community
first, and thus, provides the
foundation for establishing
Sister City Binational
Emergency Response Plans
(SCP). Fourteen sister
city pairs were originally
identified by the JCP along
theU.S.-Mexicoborder. At
a later date an additional
sister city pair was added for
Rio Bravo/Weslaco.
/ U.S. Cities
Texas
\ i1
V, rJ
i
•V" \ V ' /.-'-—* -\ ,>-" •
\ "--V. j' >'<--«'\ <$••*
Chihuahua '">*•£
\ yr
-jCoahuila.^*'' \
V^T^W^^fp^"'
(
7-x r r L/ i
Figure 17. Progression of Signed Sister City Plans
12
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
* Matamoros/Brownsviiie SCP\=/as originsiiy signed in 1997 and updated in 2002.
Source: U.S. EPA Office of SoiidWasle and Emergency Response. PROFEPA
2805. Direction Genera! de Inspeccion de Fuenjes de Contairiinacion.
The plans provide local emergency response
teams with a mechanism for addressing
issues and concerns, consisting of cooperative
measures and recommendations, including
emergency response planning, exercises, and
training. Considerable progress has been
made since 1998 in establishing the SCPs.
Two plans were signed in 1998 and by 2005,
14 plans were in place. Ciudad Juarez/
El Paso is currently pending. Adding Rio
Bravo/Weslaco increased the Border 2012
goal to 15.
To ensure that both the Joint Contingency Plan and the 15 Sister City Plans are up to date and
can be implemented during emergencies, binational exercises are conducted by federal, state
and local agencies. The most likely scenarios are developed and the agencies in charge simulate
a response, either in the field or indoors (table top exercise). Also, phone advisory tests verify
that all required parties receive adequate notice. Results are used to prepare reports, which set
the stage for JCP and SCP revisions. Since 2001, Mexico and the U.S. conducted 12 binational
emergency exercises. "Amigos inPeligro," a 2005 binational exercise, is described at
www.epaosc.net/operacionaguila.
For more information on Emergency Preparedness and Response see
www.epa.gov/border2012/eprJ)wwg.htm and
yosemite. epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb. nsf/content/ip-bilateral. htm #mexicoborder.
16
State of the Border Region
2005
-------
Environmental laws exist on both sides of the border to regulate issues such as chemical
production, pollutant discharge to air and water, and the generation, transportation, storage, and
treatment of hazardous wastes. These environmental regulations are complex, but have a simple
aim of protecting human health and the environment. On both sides of the border these laws
and their implementing regulations are enforced by federal governments, with much authority
delegated to states and in some cases to counties and municipalities.
How many facilities are in my community?
are at least 19,000 regulated facilities in the U.S. -Mexico border region with
an estimated number of 8,689 facilities in the U.S. 6 and 11,059 facilities in Mexico.7 As shown
geographically, most facilities in the U.S. are located near cities with the highest number near
San Diego followed by El Paso. Data indicate that 49% of the facilities are located in the
California border region followed by Texas (31.2%), Arizona (15.4%), and New Mexico (4.1%).6
The majority of the facilities in both the U.S. and Mexico are regulated for handling hazardous
waste.
Figure 18, in the U.S. of the
*
i ,
* ^ * *
*4
" Geo referenced data are not avaiaible for Mexico
Source: EPAAir Facility System (AFS); Permit Compliance System (PCS); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) via EPA's Integrated Data for
Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) System (November 2005 Refresh).
Facilities in the U.S. are regulated through permits issued under various statues and statutory
programs: the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act for possible impacts to air and water; the
Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act for the generation, storage, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous waste; and/or the Toxic Release Inventory for the reporting of pollutant releases.
* U.S. EPAIDEA System, 2005.
Stale of the Border Region
2005
17
-------
What when a facility violates environmental law?
_5**!flj When a facility violates
environmental law, the regulating
agency may impose actions to enforce
compliance and may also impose
monetary penalties and/or criminal
sanctions. Enforcement actions cannot
be imposed unless a violation has
occurred and has been detected by the
regulatory agency. There is, however,
not always a clear connection between
a facility polluting the environment
and compliance with the law, as
facilities may legally pollute under the
conditions of a permit and violations
may not always result in releases.
Figure 19. Number of Enforcement Actions in
the U.S. Side of the Border Region
150
120
90
60
30
143
103
110
0
2003
2001
Note: Does not include criminal enforcement actions
85
2004
Source: U.S. EPA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) System
(Includes Federal and State data reported to the data system).
Formal enforcement actions in the U.S. may be administrative, civil judicial, or criminal actions.
In aggregate, the number of formal enforcement actions in the U.S. side of the border region has
decreased from 2001 to 2004, with differences within individual border states. When examining
trends over time and differences among states, it is important to consider factors such as: federal,
state, and local environmental priorities; the number and type of facilities operating in each state;
and other environmental management activities not reflected in this indicator such as compliance
assistance and informal enforcement actions (e.g. notices of violations).
Response).
vz_
Figure 20. Inspection Results for Facilities in
the Mexican of the Border Region, 2001-2004
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
^- In Compliance El Non-Serious Violations IHiSerious Violations
—
r~^j
-
-
-
—
-
-_,!! \
163
1
1
•
I
,1
13
em i
14
311 Tl
F7^
5
i
i tl3
_J i
,11
Baja Coahuila Chihuahua Nuevo Sonera
California
Totai $ of
1'992 1'423 2'405
Source
Leon
2,805 910
306
9
1
Tamaulipas
1 ,524
PROFEPA. Subproeuraduria deAuditor a Amijiental. 2005.
In Mexico, inspection and
monitoring for industrial and
service establishments under federal
jurisdiction is conducted through
an Annual Environmental Program
of Inspection. Inspections result in
the classification of facilities to be
in compliance or not in compliance.
This may result in a determination
of non-serious or serious violations,
which may lead to temporary,
partial, or total closure of facilities.
18
State of the Border Region
2005
-------
In order to enforce environmental
laws and protect human health and the
environment, regulatory agencies may
take actions that compel facilities to
implement pollution reduction activities.
The resulting amount of pollution
reduction depends upon the type of
violation and the remedy achieved, and
may not correlate with the number of
enforcement actions taken.
Regulatory agencies may conduct
inspections to verify a facility's
compliance status. In addition, facilities
may conduct their own audits to ensure
environmental compliance and to
improve pollution prevention. Due to
the different regulatory policies and
legal systems between the U.S. and
Mexican governments, the information on
enforcement actions, compliance, pollution
reduction, inspections, and penalties as
presented cannot be directly compared.
Figure 21. Pollution Reduction from Enforcement
Actions in the U.S. Side of the Border Region
3.0
2.S
13s
I 2.0
f IS
5 1.0
a.
0,5
0
2.97
Ifcmia
BW
Note: Pollution reduction amounts are from Federal actions only.
Source: US EPA Integrated Compliance Information System (1C IS).
Figure 22
Inspections
Number of State
of Facilities in the
and Federal X,—
Border Region
2001 -2004
California
Caahuiia
Chihuahua
Nuevo Leon
Sonora
Tamaulipas
combined across
2001-2004
2001 2002
California
Arizona
New Mexico
Texas
146 132
69 76
44 17
134 150
2003
300
70
31
211
1,036
909
1.2B7
1.215
649
1,079
2004
364
50
42
171
Source: USEPA inlegrssted for Environment and Analysis (IDEA) Sptem: SEMARNAT, PRQFERA. 200S.
Figure 23. Penalties in Number and Dollar Value
in the U.S. Side of the Border Region
Cost ($>
OT
=1
-140
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source: USEPA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis {IDEA) System
(Includes Federal and State data reported to the data system).
Penalties are monetary assessments paid
by a regulated entity in response to a
violation or noncompliance. Penalties
act as deterrence to violating the law, and
an incentive for staying in compliance
with the environmental statutes and
regulations. Penalties are designed
to recover the economic benefit of
noncompliance as well as account for the
seriousness of the violation. Note that not
all enforcement actions require a penalty;
other remedies may be specified.
For more information on the Enforcement and Compliance Borderwide Workgroup see
www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/org.htmtfborderwide.
Stale of the Border Region
2005
19
-------
the
This first binational indicators report developed under the Border 2012 program represents an
initial effort to provide important information about the region. The report marks the completion
of the first quarter of the Program, 2003 to 2005. It presents an initial set of indicators, identified
after a comprehensive review of potential indicators and consensus building. For more
information about the border indicator selection and development process up to date, please visit
www. epa.gov/border2012/indi cators.htm.
Future Direction
Production of a subsequent, more comprehensive indicator report covering up to the Program's
mid-term (2003 to 2007) is anticipated for release in 2008. This next report will provide a
more complete view of the environmental and public health conditions of the border region and
progress made towards meeting Program goals and objectives. Work towards the next report
as well as other future reports will result in an improved and expanded binational indicator set.
In order to accomplish this, BITF's goal is to further refine the existing indicators and continue
to identify and develop optimal, quality indicators while increasing transparency and seeking
harmonization across the various entities.
Broad public participation and representation are essential for developing and reporting
indicators that are relevant and beneficial to border communities. Stakeholder input was
instrumental in the development of this initial report, and the Border Indicators Task Force will
continue to count on stakeholder involvement. However, more awareness and participation are
needed as there are many data gaps and research needs for ongoing development of binational
indicators. Through the Program's outreach efforts, Border 2012 will build relationships with
and invite citizens, governmental and non-governmental entities, tribes, academia, the private
sector, and others to be partners in this indicators initiative. Data from all these sources are
vital to building a sustainable long-term effort that effectively measures and reports on the
environmental and public health conditions of the U.S.- Mexico border region.
Future indicator reports will continue to be available in both electronic and print formats to
provide stakeholders with broader access to U.S.-Mexico border information. Supporting
documentation will be available at the Web page listed above.
20
------- |