-------
the Border Ares (La
EPA, and Ac of UK SccicW
Mexico Border and
W-fF.RFAS the Mission Swletneni oflhii plan
public health imd cnviratman on the U.S.- Mexico Border
Linda J'ishef ..
U S Environmental
Agenc>', U.S. I
Winston H
Hcmora.T>' Witness
Secretary tor En^ronmcntal
r the Environment and
SliMARNAT
-------
BORDER 2012:
U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
A ^nA UnHStitn ^fSWf
*vEPA&Bntal *"di"1 >2iteHS SEIBIUI
EPA-160-R-03-001
The National Coordinators (EPA's Office of International Affairs and
SEMARNAT's Office of International Affairs) express appreciation to the Ten
Border States, the U.S. Border Tribes, the co-chairs and staff of the Border
2012 coordinating bodies, the EPA San Diego and El Paso Border Offices, the
SEMARNAT and PROFEPA Border Delegations, the Western Governors
Association, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board and SEMARNAT's
Advisory Council for Sustainable Development whose support was essential to
the completion of this document.
Special thanks to the members of the Border 2012 Drafting Committee.
-------
The Border 2012 program is
dedicated in memory of
Patrick Whelan
(1964-2003)
During his eight years at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Patrick's efforts tangibly improved
the lives of residents along the U.S.-Mexico border.
He was a passionate steward of the environment
whose personal and professional actions were guided
by this commitment. Patrick's good humor and
boundless energy were critical to the success of
binational efforts to protect and improve the
environment in the border region. He forged lasting
friendships with partners based on a foundation of
mutual trust, respect, and understanding. And he
advanced international environmental cooperation
in significant and enduring ways.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MISSION STATEMENT 2
BORDER 2012 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 3
I. INTRODUCTION 4
II. BACKGROUND 8
III. A NEW APPROACH 12
IV. ACHIEVING RESULTS 13
A. Border 2012 Goals and Objectives 13
Goal#1: Reduce Water Contamination 13
Goal #2: Reduce Air Pollution 15
Goal #3: Reduce Land Contamination 16
Goal #4 : Improve Environmental Health 18
Goal #5: Reduce Exposure to Chemicals as a Result 19
of Accidental Chemical Releases and/or
Acts of Terrorism
Goal #6: Improve Environmental Performance through 20
Compliance, Enforcement, Pollution Prevention,
and Promotion of Environmental Stewardship
B. Border 2012 Tools 21
V. REGIONAL ISSUES 24
VI. ORGANIZING FOR SUCCESS 25
A. National Coordinators 25
B. Regional Workgroups 26
C. Border-wide Workgroups 27
D. Policy Forums 28
E. Task Forces 28
F. Responsibilities of the Coordinating Bodies 29
G. Providing Information to the Public 29
H. Interagency Cooperation 30
I. Funding Sources 30
VII. REPORTING RESULTS 31
A. Implementation Reports 31
B. Progress Reports 31
C. Indicators 31
LIST OF ACRONYMS 32
CONTACT LIST 33
MAY 5, 2003
-------
,iong federal, state and local,
governments in the United States and Mexico, and with
U.S. border tribes, the mission of the Border 2012 program is:
To protect the environment and public
health in the U.S.-Mexico border region,
consistent with the principles of
sustainable development.1
Natural Protected Area
Mac/eras del Carmen, Coahuila
no present and Tuture
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
BORDER 2012 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The following Guiding Principles are designed to support the mission
statement, ensure consistency among all aspects of Border 2012, and con-
tinue successful elements of previous border programs.
§£ Reduce the highest public health risks, and preserve and restore the
natural environment.
§£ Adopt a bottom-up approach for setting priorities and making decisions
through partnerships with state, local and U.S. tribal governments.
§£ Address disproportionate environmental impacts in border communities.
§£ Improve stakeholder participation and ensure broad-based representa-
tion from the environmental, public health, and other relevant sectors.
§£ Foster transparency, public participation, and open dialogue through
provision of accessible, accurate, and timely information.
§£ Strengthen capacity of local community residents and other stakehold-
ers to manage environmental and environmentally-related public
health issues.
§£ Achieve concrete, measurable results while maintaining a long-term vision.
§£ Measure program progress through development of environmental
and public health-based indicators.
§£ The United States recognizes that U.S. tribes are separate sovereign
governments, and that equity issues impacting tribal governments
I must be addressed in the United States on a government-to-govern-
ment basis.
§£ Mexico recognizes the historical debt it has with its indigenous peoples.
Therefore, appropriate measures will be considered to address their
(specific concerns, as well as to protect and preserve their cultural
integrity within the broader environmental purposes of this program.
MAY 5, 2003
-------
I.
The U.S.-Mexico border region is one of
the most dynamic in the world. It extends
more than 3,100 kilometers (2,000 miles)
from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific
Ocean, and 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)
on each side of the international border.
The region includes large deserts,
mountain ranges, rivers, wetlands, large
estuaries, and shared aquifers. The
region has various climates, a remarkable
biological diversity including many rare
and native species, and national parks
and protected areas.
(,DER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROC
-------
While its people share natural resources like water and air, the border region is
characterized by many social, economic, and political contrasts
Ninety percent of the border population resides in 14 paired, inter-dependent sis-
ter cities. Over the last 20 years, population has grown rapidly in the border
region to more than 11.8 million people. This figure is expected to reach 19.4
million by 2020. Rapid population growth in urban areas has resulted in
unplanned development, greater demand for land and energy, increased traffic
congestion, increased waste generation, overburdened or unavailable waste
treatment and disposal facilities, and more frequent chemical emergencies.
Residents in rural areas suffer from exposure to airborne dust, pesticide use and
inadequate water supply and waste treatment facilities. Border residents also suf-
fer disproportionately from many environmental health problems, including
water-borne diseases and respiratory problems.
With the active participation of the ten border states and U.S. tribal governments,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Mexico's Secretariat of
Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), in partnership with the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Mexican Secretariat of Health
(SS) and other federal agencies, have developed the Border 2012 program to pro-
tect the environment and the public's health in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
The ten-year Border 2012 program emphasizes a bottom-up, regional approach,
anticipating that local decision-making, priority-setting, and project implementa-
tion will best address environmental issues in the border region. It brings together
a wide variety of stakeholders to produce prioritized and sustained actions that
consider the environmental needs of the different border communities.
"jsvi
San Diego, CA
MAY 5, 2003
-------
The draft Border 2012
framework was revised to
incorporate many of the
recommendations and
priority issues that were
conveyed by border
stakeholders in an effort
to more effectively
address environmental
problems facing border
communities.
The proposed Border 2012 Program was announced in September 2002 in
Mexico at the meeting of the environmental authorities of the ten border states,
and in the United States in the Federal Register. These announcements launched
a 60-day comment period, during which EPA, SEMARNAT, the ten border states,
and U.S. tribes engaged in an intensive public involvement process that included
a combination of binational and domestic meetings in 27 cities along the U.S.-
Mexico border. EPA and SEMARNAT also solicited input from interested commu-
nity and stakeholder groups via additional meetings, internet exchanges, and
written correspondence.
During the public comment period, more than 1,000 individual comments were
received from border communities and other stakeholders representing industry,
non-governmental organizations, academia, state, federal and local governments,
and the general public. Based on these comments, the draft Border 2012 frame-
work was revised to incorporate many of the recommendations and priority issues
that were conveyed by border stakeholders in an effort to more effectively address
environmental problems facing border communities. The Border 2012 Response
Summary Report provides a detailed account of the comments received and how
they were incorporated into the final document. In addition, program partners
developed the Border 2012 Operational Guidance to assist partners, stakeholders
and the general public to understand how the program is implemented.
-*
-------
The Border 2012 Framework Document, Response Summary Report, and
Operational Guidance can be found at: www.epa.gov/usmexicoborderand
www.semarnat.gob.mx/frontera2012 or by contacting EPA and SEMARNAT.
Implementation reports will be prepared every two years to review the status of
activities under Border 2012. In addition, a five-year progress report will be
released in 2007, and a final report on Border 2012 will be available in 2012.
All Border 2012 partners will disseminate information regarding their activities
and project progress through web sites and/or list servers, local media and public
meetings, and by participating in other public forums, including environmental
fairs and environmental education programs.
-------
II.
The 1983 Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and
Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (La Paz
Agreement) was signed in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico,
and is the legal basis for the Border 2012 program. It empowers
the federal environmental authorities in the United States and
Mexico to undertake cooperative initiatives and is implemented
through multi-year binational programs. EPA and SEMARNAT
serve as National Coordinators for these programs.
Geography
The La Paz Agreement defines the U.S.-Mexico border region as extending more
than 3,100 kilometers (approximately 2,000 miles) from the Gulf of Mexico to the
Pacific Ocean, and 100 kilometers (approximately 62.5 miles) on either side of the
border. The border region has a variety of climates, ranging from Mediterranean
conditions in the San Diego-Tijuana area to desert lands in Arizona-Sonora, New
Mexico-Chihuahua, and Texas. This climatic variety supports a remarkable biolog-
ical diversity. Stark natural beauty and unique history can be appreciated within
the region's many national parks and protected areas. The binational border
region also contains multiple jurisdictions including ten states, local governments,
and U.S. Tribes, and a complex legal framework.
Demography
Today, the border region is home to more than 11.8 million people, with approx-
imately 6.3 million in the United States and 5.5 million in Mexico. Approximately
90 percent of the population resides in 14 paired sister cities, with the rest living
in small towns or rural communities. There are 26 U.S. federally-recognized
Native American tribes in the border region, which range in size from 9 to
17,000 members. Some of these tribes share extensive family and cultural ties to
indigenous peoples in the border region of Mexico.
Rapid Population Growth
Projected population growth rates in the border region exceed anticipated
national average growth rates (in some cases by more than 40percent) for each
country. If current trends continue, the border population is expected to increase
by 7.6 million people by 20202.
2 Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) Monograph #1 "The U.S.-Mexican Border" (SDSU, 2000).
8 BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
Mexican Indigenous
Peoples in the
Border Region
Papagos
Kikapues
Cochimi
Cucapa
U.S. Tribes in the
Border Region
Barona Band of Mission Indians
Campo Band of Mission Indians
Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians
Cocopah Indian Tribe
Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians
Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe
Inaja-Cosmit Reservation
Jamul Indian Village
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
La Posta Band of Mission Indians
Los Coyotes Reservation
Manzanita Band of Mission Indians
Kiliwa
Kumiai
Pai Pai
(Source: Institute Nacional Indigenista)
Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Pauma Band of Mission Indians
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians
Santa Ysabel
Sycuan Band of Mission Indians
Tohono O'odham Nation
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian
Nation
Viejas Band of Mission Indians
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
Sister Cities on
the U.S.-
Mexico Border
San Diego - Tijuana
Calexico - Mexicali
Yuma - San Luis
Nogales - Nogales
Naco - Naco
Douglas - Agua Prieta
Columbus Puerto Palomas
El Paso - Ciudad Juarez
Presidio - Ojinaga
Del Rio - Ciudad Acuha
Eagle Pass Piedras Negras
Laredo - Nuevo Laredo
McAllen - Reynosa
Brownsville - Matamoros
MAY 5, 2003
-------
Urban populations along the border have increased significantly over the past 20
years, due in part to the maquiladora program, begun in 1965, which provided
economic incentives to foreign (mostly U.S.-owned) assembly plants located in
the border region. The rate of industrial development increased further after the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)3, with about 1,700 plants oper-
ating in Mexico in 1990. By 2001, that figure had more than doubled to nearly
3,800 maquiladora plants, 2,700 of which were in the border states.
In Mexico, the border region has a very low unemployment rate and high wages
compared to other regions of the country. While economic growth has con-
tributed to employment, the region's infrastructure has not kept pace. As a
result, natural resources are strained and the environment and public health are
adversely affected on both sides of the border.
Environmental Degradation
Rapid population growth in urban areas has resulted in unplanned development,
greater demand for land and energy, traffic congestion, increased waste gener-
ation, overburdened or unavailable waste treatment and disposal facilities, and
increased frequency of chemical emergencies. Water quality, air quality, and nat-
ural resources also have been adversely impacted.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) removed most barriers to trade and investment among Canada, the
United States and Mexico. In order to address environmental pressures that could be caused by increased trade and devel-
opment associated with NAFTA, the parties created the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC),
the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB). The CEC's
goals are to focus on regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts, and pro-
mote environmental law enforcement. The BECC and NADBank were created to provide environmental infrastructure along
the U.S.-Mexico border.
'.'''. «.
El Paso- Ciudad Juarez
BORDER 2012:
IRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
Rural communities along the border are confronted with a host of environmental
problems, including illegal dumping, agricultural drainage, and degradation of
natural resources and ecosystems.
Water is the most limited resource in this primarily arid region. Surface and
groundwater resources are threatened by contamination, including agricultural
runoff, industrial discharge, and untreated sewage. Increasing demand for water
has led to the rapid depletion of aquifers. Inadequate water supply and ineffi-
cient use of water could limit future regional development.
Environmental Health Problems
As a result of regional environmental degradation, some border residents suffer
from environmental health problems, including waterborne and respiratory dis-
eases. These health problems can be related to air pollution, inadequate water
and sewage treatment, or improper management of pesticides, and hazardous
and solid wastes. The elderly and children are especially at risk. Tribal communi-
ties and residents of some unincorporated communities also are at greater risk,
as they are more likely to have inadequate water supply and treatment systems.
Recognizing these environmental and public health problems, the United States
and Mexico have agreed to act jointly to address them, consistent with principles
of environmental protection, resource conservation and sustainable development.
MAY 5, 2003
-------
III. A NEW APPROACH
Border 2012 emphasizes
a bottom-up approach,
anticipating that local
decision-making, priority-
setting, and project
implementation will best
address environmental
issues in the border
region.
Toward the end of the Border XXI Program (1996-2000) which
preceded Border 2012, EPA and SEMARNAT held discussions
with state and tribal governmental partners and local com-
munity stakeholders to explore ways to improve binational
environmental planning efforts in the border region.
Based on this input, the ten-year Border 2012 program was created by EPA and
SEMARNAT in partnership with other federal agencies including the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and the Mexican Secretariat of
Health, the ten border-state governments, and U.S. tribal governments. Border
2012 emphasizes a bottom-up approach, anticipating that local decision-mak-
ing, priority-setting, and project implementation will best address environmental
issues in the border region. Border 2012 has evolved from previous binational
programs: the Integrated Border Environmental Plan and Border XXI.
Under Border XXI, nine workgroups focused on particular border-wide environ-
mental issues, such as air quality or water quality. Border 2012 has four region-
ally-focused workgroups to facilitate active participation of local communities,
local governmental agencies, and U.S. tribes. It also builds upon historic and cur-
rent agreements of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC),
and on the work of NAFTA institutions such as the North American Commission
for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), and the North American Development Bank (NADB).
Although the management and preservation of natural resources are not direct-
ly addressed by Border 2012, the program is supplemented by other bilateral
instruments and mechanisms. As such, appropriate actions are coordinated by
authorities responsible for managing and protecting natural resources4.
4 In Mexico, these include SEMARNAT's National Commission for Natural Protected Areas and Director General for Wildlife,
National Institute of Ecology, National Forest Commission, and Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection. In the
United States, these include the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
12
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
IV
Program goals and objectives were identified to meet the
serious environmental and environmentally-related public
health challenges in the border region. These objectives
guide the implementation of all activities under Border 2012.
Program partners work to meet these objectives and may
support additional activities consistent with the overall
mission and goals of the program.
A. Border 2012 Goals and Objectives
REDUCE WATER CONTAMINATION
Under Border XXI, federal, state, and local institutions and
agencies participated in border area efforts to improve water
quality through the construction of infrastructure and develop-
ment of pretreatment programs. Specifically, Mexico's National
Water Commission (CNA) and EPA have provided funding and
technical assistance for project planning and construction of
infrastructure. The International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC) also provided assistance and coordination
in the development of infrastructure facilities.
Since 1995, the NAFTA-created institutions, the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development Bank (NADB), have had the primary
role in working with communities to develop and construct
infrastructure projects. BECC supports efforts to evaluate,
plan, and implement financially and operationally sustainable
water and wastewater projects; NADB helps project sponsors
develop the appropriate financial package.
When the Border XXI Program began in 1996, only 88 percent of
border households in Mexico had potable water service; 69 per-
cent were connected to sewers; and 34 percent were on sewer
systems that were connected to wastewater treatment facilities.
Those numbers improved by the end of 2000 to 93, 75 and 75
percent, respectively. In addition, Border XXI supported efforts to
monitor surface and sub-surface water quality in a number of key
basins. A list of specific projects can be found on the BECC and
NADB websites (www.cocef.org and www.nadbank.org). The fol-
lowing objectives build on these earlier efforts.
MAY 5, 2003
13
-------
By 2012, promote a 25 percent increase in the number
of homes connected to potable water supply and
wastewater collection and treatment systems.
For objective 1, the baseline is the annually cumulative num-
ber of full public water services, including potable water sup-
ply, distribution capacity, common sewers, and wastewater
treatment capacity made available to residents.
By 2012, assess significant shared and transboundary
surface waters and achieve a majority of water quality
standards currently being exceeded in those waters.
For objective 2, the baseline is the shared and transboundary
surface waters as defined, identified and evaluated for the
United States in the Clean Water Act §305(b) State reports
and for Mexico by SEMARNAT. Objective 2 is measurable and
is in conformance with the current regulatory systems of both
governments for protection from surface pollutants of both
point and non-point sources. There is no equivalent system
for groundwater. Watershed controls other than the forego-
ing also are not available.
By 2006, implement a monitoring system for evaluating
coastal water quality at the international border beach-
es. By the end of 2006, establish a 2012 objective
toward meeting coastal water quality standards of
both countries.
For objective 3, the baseline will be established by the end of
2006 in accordance with federal or state standards that either
exist or for which the Border 2012 program will support
development. The current evaluation of coastal waters in the
State of Veracruz could be considered for coastal areas with-
in the limits established by the La Paz Agreement (i.e., Texas,
Tamaulipas, California, and Baja California) if additional ben-
efit obtained from objectives 1, 2, and 3 can be shown and
resources identified to complete.
By 2005, promote the assessment of water system con-
ditions in 10 percent of the existing water systems in
the border cities to identify opportunities for improve-
ment in overall water system efficiencies.
For objective 4, the institutional capacity of water service
providers, the lack of resources available to provide infra-
structure, the cost of operation, and the pricing policies are
14
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
complex matters with social repercussions that directly affect
the quality of services provided and prevent the agencies that
operate and administer water in Mexico from being self-suf-
ficient and sustainable. For objective 4, the baseline is the
number of communities with public water systems.
GOAL #2: REDUCE AIR POLLUTION
For the past 18 years, the United States and Mexico have col-
laborated to help safeguard the health of border residents by
protecting and improving border air quality. The two govern-
ments, in partnership with border tribal, state, and local gov-
ernments, have worked to increase the knowledge about pol-
lution sources and their impacts on both sides of the border,
establish monitoring networks in several key areas, conduct
emissions inventories, and build local capacity through train-
ing. Through these efforts, the two countries have estab-
lished a foundation for binational air quality planning and
management programs. The overall program goals are to:
determine ambient concentrations from pollutant emissions;
assess contributing emission sources and their relative
impacts; and
develop and implement cost-effective control strategies.
Although substantial gains have been made, air quality is still
a major concern throughout the border region. The pressures
associated with industrial and population growth, the
increase in the number of old vehicles, differences in gover-
nance and regulatory frameworks, and topographic and
meteorologic conditions present a challenging context in
which to address air quality management. These same factors
also present many opportunities for binational cooperation.
Recognizing that pilot projects could spur the development of
innovative and progressive air quality management approaches,
the two governments announced the Border Air Quality
Strategy (BAQS) in November 2002. The BAQS will build on
existing efforts by helping to improve exchange of informa-
tion and encouraging coordinated planning, management,
and innovation. BAQS projects will help evaluate feasibility of
coordinated airshed management and inform the work
undertaken by the Border 2012 Regional Workgroups and
border-wide Air Policy Forum.
-
MAY 5, 2003
15
-------
Pollutants from a number of sources including motor vehi-
cles, power plants and industrial facilities, agricultural opera-
tions, mining, dust from unpaved roads, and open burning of
trash have affected urban and regional air quality along the
U.S.-Mexico border. The most common and damaging pollu-
tants from these sources include sulfur dioxide, suspended
particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5), nitrogen dioxide,
ground-level ozone, and carbon monoxide.
By 2012 or sooner, reduce air emissions as much as pos-
sible toward attainment of respective national ambient
air quality standards, and reduce exposure in the bor-
der region, as supported by the following interim
objectives:
By 2003, define baseline and alternative scenarios for
emissions reductions along the border, and their
impacts on air quality and human exposure.
By 2004, based on results from interim objective 1,
define specific emission reductions strategies and air
quality and exposure objectives to be achieved by 2012.
REDUCE LAND CONTAMINATION
Annex III of the La Paz Agreement establishes the importance
of cooperation between the United States and Mexico on
issues related to hazardous waste and hazardous substances
in the border region. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Workgroup was active in the Border XXI program. The
Workgroup assessed hazardous and solid waste problems in
the border area, improved the monitoring of the trans-
boundary movements of hazardous waste in the border
region, identified the hazardous waste generators and man-
agement facilities in the region and established a system to
notify its counterpart country of new facilities. The Border
2012 Policy Forum for Hazardous and Solid Waste will con-
tinue and expand these efforts with the following objectives:
By 2004, identify needs and develop an action plan to
improve institutional and infrastructure capacity for
waste management and pollution prevention as they
pertain to hazardous and solid waste and toxic sub-
INTERIM
OBJECTIVE 1
INTERIM
OBJECTIVE 2
GOAL #3:
16
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
stances along the U.S.-Mexico border. Starting in 2005,
the plan will be implemented and concluded by 2012.
Waste "management capacity" (both institutional and in
terms of infrastructure) means having the techniques, organ-
izations, expertise and technology to effectively handle and
dispose of waste. Where a lack of capacity is identified, the
Border 2012 program will work to develop the needed capac-
ity to ensure the appropriate management of waste.
By 2004, evaluate the hazardous waste tracking sys-
tems in the United States and Mexico. During the year
2006, develop and consolidate the link between both
tracking systems.
Currently, both the United States and Mexico have their own,
separate computer systems for tracking the movement of
hazardous waste across the border. If these systems were
linked it would lead to a better exchange of information, and
to a more complete and effective tracking of the movement
of hazardous wastes across the U.S.-Mexico border.
By 2010, clean up three of the largest sites that contain
abandoned waste tires in the U.S.-Mexico border
region, based on policies and programs developed in
partnership with local governments.
Piles of scrap tires are an environmental problem because they
pose a risk to health and the environment from emissions from
tire fires, which are difficult to extinguish, and because they
serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes. The Border 2012
program intends to put the tires which are cleaned up to pro-
ductive use, such as having them recycled or reused.
By 2004, develop a binational policy of clean-up and
restoration resulting in the productive use of aban-
doned sites contaminated with hazardous waste or
materials, along the length of the border, in accordance
with the laws of each country. By 2007, apply this poli-
cy at least once in each of the four geographic regions.
There are a number of contaminated sites in the border
region that are of concern to both countries. Mexico and the
United States will develop a policy on having sites cleaned up
and restored to productive use. The policy also will identify
priority sites in the border area.
;
MAY 5, 2003
17
-------
IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Protection of public health is a key element of the Border 2012
program and it is an integral part of all program activities.
Border environmental health efforts focus on reducing the risk
to border families, especially children, that may result from
exposure to air pollution, drinking water contaminants, pesti-
cides and other toxic chemicals. If successful, there should be
improvements in border health such as reductions in air-related
respiratory diseases, decreases in water-borne illnesses and
markedly fewer pesticide-related poisonings.
Environmental health efforts under Border 2012 improve
capacity to conduct surveillance, monitoring, and research on
the relationship between human health and environmental
exposures; deliver environmental health intervention, preven-
tion and educational services; and enhance public awareness
and understanding of environmental exposure conditions and
health problems. Program activities focus on strengthening
data gathering (including the development/application of
indicators to assess changes in specific human exposure and
health conditions), training and education to build infrastruc-
ture; and provision of critical information to decisionmakers
to achieve improved environmental health in the border
region.
(AIR): By 2006, evaluate various measures of respiratory
health in children that might be tracked to assess
changes that may result from actions to improve air
quality in border communities.
(WATER): By 2006, evaluate various measures of gas-
trointestinal illness that might be tracked to assess
changes that may result from actions to improve water
quality in border communities.
OBJECTIVE 3 (PESTICIDES):
OBJECTIVE SA: By 2006, an assessment and pilot program will be com-
pleted that explores the feasibility of harmonizing a bina-
tional system for reporting acute pesticide poisonings.
OBJECTIVE BB: By 2007, reduce pesticide exposure by training 36,000
farmworkers on pesticide risks and safe handling, includ-
ing ways to minimize exposure for families and children.
18
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
OBJECTIVE 4
OBJECTIVE 4AI
OBJECTIVE 4B:
GOAL #5:
OBJECTIVE 1
OBJECTIVE 2
(CAPACITY BUILDING):
By 2006, establish a "distance-learning", post-graduate
degree program to support advanced training on environ-
mental health in conjunction with Pan American Health
Organization regional offices and academic institutions.
By 2004, extend current efforts in binational environ-
mental health training for 100 health care providers each
for pesticides and water.
REDUCE EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS AS A RESULT OF
ACCIDENTAL CHEMICAL RELEASES AND/OR ACTS OF
TERRORISM
Annex II of the La Paz Agreement provided for the establish-
ment of a Joint Response Team (JRT). The JRT includes repre-
sentatives from all federal agencies responsible for chemical
emergency prevention, preparedness, and response, as well
as state and local officials. Annex II further required that the
JRT develop a Joint Contingency Plan (JCP) that would estab-
lish cooperative measures for responding effectively to haz-
ardous substance incidents along the border. The first JCP
was completed in 1988. A revised version was completed and
signed in June 1999.
Co-chaired in the United States by the EPA and in Mexico by
the Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection
(PROFEPA), the JRT develops and implements policies and
programs within the context of the JCP, including the diverse
activities of emergency response planning, drills, conferences,
and other training initiatives.
By 2004, a chemical emergency advisory/notification
mechanism between Mexico and the United States will
be clearly established.
A notification mechanism was established as part of the 1999
United States-Mexico Joint Contingency Plan. However, it
must be further revised, updated, and exercised in order to
reflect changes in technology and protocol.
By 2008, joint contingency plans for all 14 pairs of sister
cities will be in place and operating (including exercises),
with the establishment of binational committees for
chemical emergency prevention (or similar border forums).
MAY 5, 2003
19
-------
The concept of sister city contingency plans was established
in 1983 by the JRT. Recognizing that chemical emergencies
affect the local community first, JRT members agreed that
subsequent planning efforts would be needed for the 28 sis-
ter cities - 14 in Mexico and the adjacent 14 in the United
States - that could be affected by a major hazardous sub-
stance release. The sister city contingency plan program was
created to meet that need.
As of January 1, 2003, 10 sister city plans have been complet-
ed, with the remaining sister city plans in various planning
stages, and at least half of the sister cities with completed plans
have conducted exercises.
By 2012, 50 percent of sister city joint contingency plans
will be supplemented with preparedness and preven-
tion related efforts, such as risk and consequence analy-
sis, risk reduction, and counter-terrorism.
With the completion of 10 sister city plans, the JRT is work-
ing to expand efforts into prevention. While some risk identi-
fication has been completed in the United States, including
commodity flow studies and hazard analysis, the JRT is work-
ing on a more coordinated plan of action for risk identifica-
tion and reduction in order to better protect border commu-
nities from chemical accidents.
GOAL #6: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH
COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT, POLLUTION PREVENTION,
AND PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Previous Border XXI efforts in this area were handled by a vari-
ety of workgroups, with projects cutting across a variety sec-
tors. Enforcement coordination focused on cooperation
around specific enforcement cases as well as targeted training
and information-sharing. Compliance assistance efforts con-
sisted of seminars, workshops, training and dissemination of
materials to help businesses understand and comply with envi-
ronmental requirements. Pollution prevention efforts were led
by a workgroup and resulted in increased exchange of infor-
mation on technologies via workshops and training and mul-
tiple voluntary programs with measurable waste reductions
from individual participants. Under Border 2012, border-wide
efforts will rely upon regional enforcement task forces to con-
tinue these efforts to achieve the following objectives:
20
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
By 2006, increase by 50 percent the number of indus-
tries along the U.S. - Mexico border implementing vol-
untary compliance and/or self-audits (such as the devel-
opment of an Environmental Management System
[EMS] or participation in voluntary assessment pro-
grams), using 2003 as a baseline year.
In order to achieve this objective, program partners will estab-
lish minimum requirements for inclusion in the baseline. Once
established, the qualifying programs would be targeted for new
or continued funding and coordination through regional efforts.
By 2006, determine the pollution sources in the border
area that present high risks to human health and the
environment that are subject to regulation and set pri-
orities for actions to lower the risk.
Program partners will identify priority sectors based on avail-
able data for their respective regions. Once identified, the
appropriate enforcement Task Forces would propose and
implement priority activities.
By 2012, increase compliance in the priority areas
determined in Objective 2 by assessing and responding
to citizen complaints, compliance assistance, compli-
ance incentives, compliance monitoring, and enforce-
ment to reduce the risks from non-compliant facilities
and encourage voluntary pollution prevention.
This represents a continuation and expansion of targeted
efforts to address the areas of highest risk through a range of
programs. Border 2012, through objectives 2 and 3, will
improve priority-setting and encourage long-term planning
for activities by regional and local officials.
B. Border 2012 Tools
To achieve these goals and objectives, Border 2012 uses a variety of tools. The
following list of tools has been identified to underscore their importance, but it
is not intended to be all-inclusive:
Pollution Prevention Techniques
Pollution prevention should be a key component of all environmental media pro-
grams (i.e., air, water, hazardous and solid waste). Pollution prevention tech-
niques can include:
MAY 5, 2003
21
-------
«
Capacity Building: Identification of training needs and support for training
efforts to address these needs. For example, training could be provided to
industrial enterprises on efficient and cost-effective methods to reduce volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from process operations.
Technical Assistance: Site-specific technical assistance could be provided to
conduct voluntary multi-media site assessments to identify cost-effective pollu-
tion prevention opportunities.
Environmental Stewardship: Projects that promote good stewardship and
responsibility, such as conducting and promoting EMS training for industry,
governments, and others are encouraged.
Public Health Interventions
Mechanisms will be developed among federal, state, local and U.S. tribal agencies
to reduce exposure to environmental contaminants and to alert residents to possi-
ble exposure. Examples include developing innovative health education techniques,
providing community training and other environmental health outreach efforts.
Sustainable Management of Water Resources
Given the importance of water in the border region, water resources must be
managed in a sustainable manner. Some tools available to promote this approach
include analysis of the links between water quality and quantity, studies of
groundwater availability, improved measurement of surface flows, removal of
invasive species, and increased efficiency measures. In many cases, promotion of
this approach requires coordination between organizations having complementary
jurisdictions. For example, regulation of water quality is the responsibility of the
respective national environmental agencies, EPA and SEMARNAT, while regulation
of water quantity (i.e., source development and allocation of supplies) for certain
transboundary rivers is the binational responsibility of IBWC. In the United States,
source development falls under the Department of the Interior and allocation is
done within the framework of state law. In Mexico, source development and allo-
cation are overseen by the National Water Commission (CNA).
Environmental Information
Collection, management and exchange of environmental data are essential to effec-
tive environmental management. Some examples include harmonizing binational
environmental protocols or information management systems (e.g., hazardous
waste tracking systems) and developing effective data collection and information
exchange mechanisms between Border 2012 partners and border stakeholders.
22
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
Regulation and Policy Development
Complex environmental problems sometimes require regulation and/or policy
development. Examples include the development of domestic or binational poli-
cies to address used tire piles along the border (working with tire manufacturers
and vendors) and the development or strengthening of regulations to improve
wastewater reuse.
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
Effective enforcement and compliance assistance requires constant and sus-
tained coordination among governmental agencies on both sides of the border.
One important tool is capacity building to establish and implement effective
enforcement and compliance programs. Examples include training of customs
officials to spot suspect shipments of transboundary waste, and providing assis-
tance to importers of hazardous waste to ensure compliance with federal and
state waste management regulations.
Environmental Education and Training
Capacity building through environmental education and training is critical to
long-term environmental protection. Environmental education programs and
training efforts are integrated within the Border 2012 framework to foster
greater community awareness and engagement on environmental issues at
regional and local levels. Tools to accomplish this include development of primary
and secondary school curriculum and training to increase understanding of
environmental risks and issues at an early age; and provision of support and
assistance from environmental education organizations to help develop and/or
implement regional and/or border-wide environmental education strategies.
Environmental education
programs and training
efforts are integrated
within the Border 2012
framework to foster
greater community
awareness and engage-
ment on environmental
issues at regional and
local levels.
Infrastructure Planning and Development
Important environmental infrastructure projects can be advanced from the plan-
ning stages to full implementation by optimizing the use of resources from state,
federal, and local agencies, and from BECC and NADB. More specifically, BECC
and NADB support the management, development, and financing of environ-
mental infrastructure projects under their existing programs. They also play a role
in training Border 2012 participants and supporting program implementation.
MAY 5, 2003
23
-------
During the development of the Border 2012 framework, border
residents identified many regional issues of concern. An inten-
sive public outreach process provided opportunities for residents
of border communities to discuss local issues of importance from
their own perspectives. Many activities under Border 2012 are
implemented based on such input from local stakeholders.
There were many consistent themes received in the regional comments, such as the
need to have clean water and air in border communities. There also were some
uniquely regional concerns such as water deficiencies in the Colorado River Delta. A
matrix summarizing these regional issues can be found in the Border2012 Response
Summary Report, along with responses to region-specific comments. Following are
highlights of the environmental concerns identified by the public in each region.
CALIFORNIA-BAJA CALIFORNIA Air quality, water supply and sanitation, haz-
ardous waste management, and cross-border emergency response capability were
among the issues identified in this region. Specifically, the public voiced air quali-
ty concerns regarding the proposed power plants in Mexicali, soil particles in the
air from the Salton Sea, vehicle emissions and brick-kiln burnings in Tecate, as well
as trash burning in many cities. Water quality issues raised by the public included
the Salton Sea, and the Colorado River Basin, and often were related to new
power plants, untreated sewage, and the presence of oil in water and drains.
ARIZONA-SONORA: Air quality problems stemming from dusty roads, vehicle emis-
sions, wood burning, and border enforcement tire dragging were mentioned in this
region. The water issues of concern to this region included lack of reservoirs, lack of
wastewater treatment infrastructure, and water contamination from smelters. Land pol-
lution problems mostly were associated with used tires and inadequate waste disposal.
NEW MEXICO-TEXAS-CHIHUAHUA: Residents pointed to the need for region-
wide plans for air basins and watersheds, such as the Paso del Norte Air Basin,
or in the Big Bend/Maderas del Carmen/Canon de Santa Elena area. Other air
quality problems focused on toxic gases, and dust from trucks in the
Marfa/Presidio area. Water quality and quantity is of concern in the Ciudad
Juarez-El Paso area, mostly due to the steady overdraft of the Hueco Bolson
aquifer, and waste pollution in the Conchos and Rio Grande basins.
TEXAS-COAHUILA-NUEVO LEON-TAMAULIPAS: Issues of concern in this
region included water supply, hazardous waste and hazardous materials man-
agement. Also, many comments were received which were related to the need
for development of water and wastewater treatment infrastructure, as well as
reduction of contamination by auto shops and from sugar cane burning.
24
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
VI. ORGANIZING FOR
EPA and SEMARNAT National Coordinators provide guidance
and oversight for three types of coordinating bodies under
Border 2012: Regional Workgroups, Border-wide Workgroups
and Policy Forums, and for their respective Task Forces. Each of
these bodies work on border issues bringing to bear their
diverse but complementary perspectives, and they are
described in detail below.
A. National Coordinators
Consistent with the terms of the La Paz Agreement, federal-level National
Coordinators from the United States and Mexico, respectively, manage overall
program implementation, and ensure cooperation, coordination and communi-
cation among all coordinating bodies. Although the coordinating bodies have
autonomy, the National Coordinators ensure overall progress toward program
Nat
EPA
National Coordinators
SEMARNAT
r^\\f
Regional
Workgroups
California-Baja California
Arizona-Sonora
New Mexico-Texas-
Chihuahua
Texas-Coahuila-Nuevo Leon-
Tamaulipas
c^
Border-wide
Workgroups
Environmental Health
Emergency Preparedness
and Response
Cooperative Enforcement
and Compliance
Policy
Forums
Air
Water
Hazardous and Solid
Waste
Task Forces
Address specific regionally- and community-identified concerns by implementing site-specific projects
MAY 5, 2003
-------
goals. They assist the coordinating bodies in maintaining focus on binational and
transboundary environmental and public health issues consistent with the pro-
gram's Guiding Principles.
Based on an assessment of needs, and with guidance from program partners, the
National Coordinators may create additional coordinating bodies to address short-
or long-term, solution-oriented initiatives (such as integration of data/informa-
tion). The National Coordinators also ensure consideration of important cross-cut-
ting issues that are not addressed by any formal coordinating body.
B. Regional Workgroups
Regional Workgroups are the foundation of Border 2012. They are multi-media
and geographically-focused, and emphasize regional public health and environ-
mental issues. They coordinate activities at the regional level and support the
efforts of local Task Forces. Each Regional Workgroup has one state and one fed-
eral co-chair from each country.
Four binational workgroups have been established in the following regions:
California-Baja California
Arizona-Sonora
New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua
Texas-Coahuila-Nuevo Leon-Tamaulipas
CALIFORNIA I
ARIZONA
lexical! 'JVuma
San Luis^
Rio Colorado^
NEW MEXICO
' > \
" - N.ogales Naco '"'T^l Ji\. El Paso^
^ BAJA'] k < - _N!c°Douglas ' Las riiVlaH
f 1 CALIF. ("-,. N°93l« Naco AgUJ - I Palomas S°
"^v ^ Prieta v
( California-Baja California \
OKLAHOMA
100km border zone as defined
' by the La Paz Agreement
( Arizona-Sonora )
TEXAS
\
Pacific Ocean
,'\&\ SONORA / \0jinaga^x /' \ ne| Rio'\
S . 'y ^\ V,/ CiudadAcuna( \
( New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua ) ^^ / ^agie Pass
I V l ^. / j _^ ur ^ ^
\ CALIF. S CHIHUAHUA ^7-t_^'/^^^egras \
"" SUR V /
'^A V- V
iAt^
Border 2012
Regional Workgroups
Leon-Tamaulipas
^-, =
Nuevcf
Lareda
launpas i IM IU"S
") COAHUILA <^ ^B V~s^ ^c
Gulf of
DURANGO C
^V\ V^ >NUEVO
, _J SI LE6N< (
^ACATECAS / ] T(AMAULIPAS
26
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
In addition to general roles and responsibilities described in Section F (below),
Regional Workgroups:
Identify and prioritize regional environmental issues;
Recommend issues beyond regional scope to be addressed by Border-wide
Workgroups and/or Policy Forums; and
Work with border-wide bodies to address those issues.
Regional Workgroups are broad-based and include representatives from local
communities from both sides of the border, as well as from binational organiza-
tions such as BECC, NADB, IBWC, non-governmental and community-based
organizations, academic institutions, and the private sector. In addition, Regional
Workgroups include relevant federal, state, local, and tribal governments, includ-
ing representatives from environment, health, natural resource, and emergency
response agencies.
C. Border-wide Workgroups
Border-wide Workgroups concentrate on issues that are multi-regional (identified
as a priority by two or more regional workgroups) and primarily federal in nature
(requiring direct, high-level, and sustained leadership by federal program partners
in the United States and Mexico). For example, cross-border emergency response
requires the consistent application of a common protocol to ensure that effective
actions are taken. Development and communication of this protocol is clearly a
federal responsibility, confirming the need for a Border-wide Workgroup.
Each of the three Border-wide Workgroups have a federal co-chair from the
United States and Mexico, respectively, and address the following topics:
Environmental Health
Emergency Preparedness and Response (Joint Response Team)
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance
In addition to the general roles and responsibilities described in Section F, Border-
wide Workgroups:
Identify and prioritize border-wide/transboundary issues; and
Implement programs and projects to address priority border-wide issues.
For example, the Border-wide Environmental Health Workgroup will provide tech-
nical assistance and data to Regional and other Border-wide Workgroups and
Policy Forums to facilitate the implementation of regulatory, risk management and
pollution prevention actions to protect public health and the environment.
MAY 5, 2003
27
-------
Border-wide Workgroups have broad-based stakeholder participation and
include non-governmental and community-based organizations, academic insti-
tutions, local, state, and tribal representatives, and binational organizations from
both countries with expertise in the given workgroup's subject area. However,
the confidential nature of enforcement investigations may require that some
meetings of the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup will not
be open to the public.
D. Policy Forums
Policy Forums have a media-specific locus and concentrate on broad policy issues
that require an ongoing dialogue between both countries. Policy Forums are
guided by the priorities of their respective nations and by the policy needs iden-
tified by Regional and Border-wide Workgroups. Policy Forums may elect to
address policy issues through Task Forces and/or project-level efforts.
Each Policy Forum has a federal co-chair from the United States and Mexico. The
co-chairs are located at EPA and SEMARNAT headquarters where they can most
effectively influence national policy.
Three Policy Forums address policy issues and provide technical assistance to
Regional and Border-wide Workgroups in the following areas:
Air
Water
Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste
In addition to the general roles and responsibilities described in Section F, the
Policy Forums:
Identify and prioritize border-wide, binational, federal policy issues;
Address and resolve border-wide policy issues; and
Target resources for regionally-based projects (emphasizing pollution prevention).
Policy Forums benefit from broad-based stakeholder input by including non-gov-
ernmental and community-based organizations, academic institutions, local,
state, and tribal representatives, and binational organizations from both coun-
tries with expertise in the given Policy Forum's subject area.
E. Task Forces
Border 2012 coordinating bodies may create Task Forces to address specific
regionally- and community-identified concerns, to implement site-specific proj-
ects, or to address issue-specific concerns. Task Force leaders and participants will
be selected based on the specific issue(s) or local initiative(s) to be addressed.
28
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
They will be as representational as possible, including interested local communities;
relevant local, state, federal and tribal governments; binational organizations;
non-governmental and community-based organizations; academic institutions;
and the private sector as appropriate. However, regional enforcement Task Forces
may not be as representative or open in their meetings due to the confidential
nature of discussions of enforcement investigations.
F. Responsibilities of the Coordinating Bodies
In support of the Border 2012 Guiding Principles (see page 3), the coordinating
bodies:
Identify and build consensus on respective priorities;
Identify Task Forces, including leadership;
Ensure adequate representation of stakeholders in order to plan and imple-
ment projects;
Develop budgets and identify potential funding sources for Task Force efforts;
Support development of indicators given the availability of adequate resources;
Collect data to monitor progress of activities;
Leverage resources to achieve program goals;
Meet a minimum of once per calendar year;
Manage organizational and logistical aspects of meetings (e.g., develop agen-
das and schedules, secure meeting venues, provide translation services, etc.);
Facilitate communication among coordinating bodies to avoid duplication of
efforts; and
Operate under guidence from and report on progress to the National
Coordinators.
G. Providing Information to the Public
Border 2012 coordinating bodies facilitate stakeholder participation and encour-
age open dialogue. All meetings are held in communities within the U.S.-Mexico
border region and will be open to the public. Meeting notice are provided at least
30 days in advance. Meeting locations alternate between the United States and
Mexico and the meetings include simultaneous interpretation. Agendas and
meeting results are provided in English and Spanish and are widely disseminated.
However, as noted above, regional enforcement Task Forces may not be as open
in their meetings due to the confidential nature of discussions of enforcement
investigations.
MAY 5, 2003
29
-------
To ensure transparency and foster information exchange, the coordinating bod-
ies disseminate information regarding their activities and progress on specific
projects by posting information to Web sites and list servers, through print media
and public meetings, as well as by participating in environmental fairs and envi-
ronmental education programs.
In addition, program partners have developed the Border 2012 Operational
Guidance to assist partners, stakeholders and the general public to understand
how the program is implemented.
H. Interagency Cooperation
Although Border 2012 is administered primarily by EPA, SEMARNAT, HHS, SS, the ten
border states, and U.S. tribes, all program activities are selected and implemented by
coordinating bodies with full consideration of relevant activities implemented by other
institutions and the advice provided by the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB), SEMARNAT's Advisory Council for Sustainable Development (CCDS) and other
organizations. These organizations represent a broad spectrum of programs and per-
spectives from governmental, non-governmental, academic, and private sectors.
Representatives of these organizations participate actively in the work of Border 2012
coordinating bodies, and they provide valuable context for Border 2012 activities.
I. Funding Sources
Achievement of the goals of Border 2012 will depend on continued availability and
efficient utilization of funding. Border 2012 coordinating bodies estimate on an
ongoing basis the resources required and all potential sources of funding in order to
meet program objectives. In addition, it is essential that all parties fully participate in
developing the projects, policies and programs required to meet the objectives.
Funding from EPA and SEMARNAT is an important component of the overall
budget for border activities. However, federal funding is allocated on an annual
basis based on requests to the legislatures of each country and it is subject to
executive approval. The percentage of the annual appropriations allocated for
border activities is variable and cannot be estimated in advance.
In addition to these federal sources, strategic investments from state and local
governments and from the private sector are required as are bilateral and multi-
lateral financing and lending from the NADB and the World Bank. All of these
organizations offer a variety of grant and program funding and lending sources,
and all offer opportunities for financial support for Border 2012 activities.
An important part of the development of cost estimates and identification of fund-
ing sources is when coordinating bodies appoint Task Forces. Task Forces develop
project proposals and identify proposed funding sources. Coordinating bodies also
develop open and competitive multi-year project funding mechanisms for Task
Forces that take into account the need to utilize a wide-range of funding sources.
3O
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
VII. REPORTING RESULTS
A. Implementation Reports
A report describing the status of current and proposed activities under Border
2012 will be prepared every two years, and will be made publicly available
through internet postings and/or other available media.
Implementation Reports
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
1
2009
2010
2011
Mid-Term Report
B. Progress Reports
Comprehensive reports describing program progress on meeting the overarching
goals and objectives of the Border 2012 program, including environmental indi-
cators, will be available through internet postings and other available media. A
mid-term progress report will be prepared in 2007, and a final report will be
completed in 2012.
C. Indicators
To achieve Border 2012 goals and objectives, it is essential that all actions taken
by the United States, Mexico, their respective border states, U.S. tribes and resi-
dents must have real, meaningful and measurable results. Indicators of environ-
mental progress will be developed and used to measure these results.
Based on the valuable work done under Border XXI, environment and health
indicators will measure progress being made toward Border 2012 goals and
objectives. These indicators will have specific definitions and protocols for col-
lection, analysis, interpretation and quality control. Border 2012 coordinating
bodies will participate in the development of these indicators with support from
the network of research universities in the border states. The National
Coordinators will periodically review the indicators and report the result to the
Workgroups, Forums and the public. The results will be used to help guide deci-
sions about which efforts are effective and should be continued, and which
should be redesigned or curtailed.
Final Report
MAY 5, 2003
31
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BANDAN Banco para el Desarrollo de America del Norte (see NADBank)
BECC Border Environment Cooperation Commission (see COCEF)
CCA Comision para la Cooperacion Ambiental de America del Norte
(see CEC)
CCDS Consejo Consultivo para Desarrollo Sustentable
CEC North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(see CCA)
CILA Comision Internacional de Lfmites y Aguas (see IBWC)
CIPAS Centre de Investigation y Politica Ambiental del Suroeste
CNA Comision Nacional de Agua
COCEF Comision de Cooperacion Ecologica Fronteriza (see BECC)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EMS Environmental Management System
GNEB Good Neighbor Environmental Board
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission (see CILA)
NADB North American Development Bank (see BANDAN)
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement (see TLCAN)
PROFEPA Mexico's Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection
SCERP Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
SS Mexico's Secretariat of Health
SEMARNAT Mexico's Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources
TLCAN Tratado de Libre Comercio de America del Norte (see NAFTA)
32
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
-------
CONTACT LIST
The following contacts can provide information on environmental issues and activities in their respective
states and regions.
UNITED STATES
EPA OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
U.S. National Coordinator
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Telefono: (202) 564-6600
Fax: (202) 565-2407
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/international
EPA REGION 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (41 5) 972-3434
Internet: www.epa.gov/region09
SAN DIEGO EPA BORDER OFFICE*
610 West Ash Street (905)
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619)235-4765
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Arizona-Mexico Border Programs Unit
400 West Congress , Suite 433
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 628-6733
(888)271-9302
Internet: www.adeq.state.az.us
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Border Affairs Unit
1001 I Street, 25th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916)445-3864
Internet: www.calepa.ca.gov
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
1190 St. Francis Dr.,
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
Telephone: (505) 827-2855
Internet: www.nmenv.state.nm.us
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Division of Border Affairs
MC-121
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Telephone: (512)239-3600
Internet: www.tceq.state.tx.us
EPA REGION 6*
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214)665-6444
Internet: www.epa.gov/region06
EL PASO EPA BORDER OFFICE
4050 Rio Bravo (100)
El Paso, TX 79902
Telephone: (915) 533-7273
*Contact this office for Tribal Coordinator contact information.
MEXICO
UNIDAD COORDINADORA DE ASUNTOS
INTERNACIONALES DE SEMARNAT
Coordinador Nacional Mexico
Av. San Jeronimo 458, Col. Jardfnes del Pedregal,
Del. Alvaro obregon, c.p. 01900 Mexico, D.F.
Telefono: (52-55)5490-2100
Fax: (52-55)5490-2194
Internet: www.semarnat.gob.mx/frontera2012
BAJA CALIFORNIA
Direccion General de Ecologia
Telephone: (664) 624 2095
Fax: (664) 624 2096
MAY 5, 2003
33
-------
CONTACT LIST (Continued)
CHIHUAHUA
Direction de Ecologia
Telephone: (614)4106440
Fax: (614)4100474
COAHUILA
Institute Coahuilense de Ecologia
Telephone: (844)4149213
(844)412 5622,-22
Fax: (844)412 5678,-22
NUEVO LEON
Subsecretaria de Ecologia
Telephone: (818) 331 31 56,-64,-94
Fax: (818)331 3156,-64,-94
SONORA
Direction General de Normatividad Ecologica
Telephone: (662) 213 1966
Fax: (662)2131966
TAMAULIPAS
Direccidn General de Desarrollo Sustentable
Telephone: (834)3189450
Fax: (834)3189466
DELEGACION SEMARNAT EN BAJA CALIFORNIA
Telephone: (686) 551 8701
EMAIL: bc_deleg@semarnat.gob.mx
DELEGACION SEMARNAT EN SONORA
Telephone: (662)2592701
EMAIL: son.deleg@semarnat.gob.mx_
DELEGACION DE PROFEPA EN CHIHUAHUA
Telephone: (656)611 0166
(656)611 0220
Fax:
EMAIL:
chihprofepa@terra.com.mx
DELEGACION DE SEMARNAT EN CHIHUAHUA
Telephone: (614)442 1501
deleg@chihuahua.semarnat.gob.mx
DELEGACION DE SEMARNAT EN NUEVO LEON
DELG. DE NUEVO LEON
Telephone: (818)3698902
EMAIL: nleon_deleg@semarnat.gob.mx
DELEGACION DE SEMARNAT EN COAHUILA
Telephone: (844) 41 1 8402
EMAIL: delegado@coahuila.semarnat.gob.mx
DELEGACION DE SERMARNAT EN TAMAULIPAS
Telephone: (834)318 5251
EMAIL: delegado@tamaulipas.semarnat.gob.mx
END OF ENGLISH VERSION
34
BORDER 2012: U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
------- |