U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Cooperative Environmental Management

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Tohono O’odham Nation land

Desert Diamond Casino

1100 Pima Mine Road, Sahuarita, Arizona

October 17-19, 2005

Meeting Summary/Minutes

FINALU. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative Environmental
Management

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Tohono O’odham Nation land

Desert Diamond Casino

1100 Pima Mine Road, Sahuarita, Arizona

October 17-19, 2005

Meeting Summary/Minutes

Monday, October 17, 2005							        (8:36 a.m.)

Meeting Participants

Board Members

Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Regional Studies of the
Californias, San Diego State University, Chair, San Diego, California

Amanda Aguirre, CEO/President, Regional Center for Border Health, Inc.,
San Luis, Arizona

Larry S. Allen, Board of Directors, Malpai Borderlands Group, Rio
Rancho, New Mexico

Gedi Cibas, Ph.D., Manager, Border Programs, New Mexico Environment
Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Gary Gillen, President, Gillen Pest Control, Richmond Texas

Keiko Herai, Sony Electronics, San Diego, California (for Douglas Smith)

Stephen M. Niemeyer, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),
Austin, Texas

Ned L. Norris, Jr., Vice Chair, The Tohono O’odham Nation, Sells,
Arizona

David Randolph, Border Coordination Officer, Arizona-Mexico Commission,
Phoenix, Arizona

Diane Rose, Mayor, Imperial Beach, California

Peter S. Silva, Vice Chair, State Water Resources Control Board,
Sacramento, California

Robert Varady, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Udall Center for Studies in
Public Policy, University of Arizona, and Professor of Environmental
Policy, Tucson, Arizona

Ann Marie A. Wolf, President, Sonoran Environmental Research Institute,
Tucson, Arizona

Federal Board Members and Representatives

Carl Edlund, EPA, Region 6

Carlos Marin, Acting Commissioner for U. S. Section, International
Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), El Paso, Texas

Alven Lam, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD,
Washington, DC

Linda Lawson, Director, Safety, Energy and the Environment, U. S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)

John Ritchie, Border Coordinator, Office of Mexico Affairs, U. S.
Department of State, Washington, DC.

Jim Stefanov, U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the
Interior, Austin, Texas

 Resource Specialists

Manuel Ayala, Natural Resource Manager, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NCRS), U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, DC

Jacob Macias, Economic Development Representative for Arizona, Economic
Development Administration, Seattle Regional Office, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Seattle, Washington

Paul Michel, Manager, Southwest/Border Office, EPA, Region 9, San
Francisco, California

Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer, International Boundary and Water
Commission, El Paso, Texas

EPA/OCEM Staff and Management

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management,
EPA

Elaine Koerner, GNEB Designated Federal Officer, EPA, OCEM

Geraldine Brown, EPA, OCEM

Lois Williams, EPA, OCEM

Speakers

Councilman Edward Encinas, Elders Program, Santa Vera District Council,
Tohono O’odham Nation

Mike Connolly, Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, San Diego County

Colin Soto, Cocopah Indian Tribe

Jonathan Ammon, Office of Homeland Security, State of Arizona

Rose Whitehair, Office of Homeland Security, State of Arizona

Judith Gans, Udall Center for Policy Studies

Paula Stigler, Environmental Department, Pala Band of Indians

Hiram Sarabia, Pala Band of Indians

René Córdova, Mexican Cosejo Consultivo Liaisons to the GNEB

Flavio Olivieri, Mexican Cosejo Consultivo Liaisons to the GNEB

Melody Sees, Environmental Director, Los Coyotes Reservation

Art Guajardo, Assistant Chief, U. S. Customs and Border Protection

Roger De Rosa, Refuge Manager, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge

Public Commenters

Joaquin Murrieta, Sonoran Institute

Mary Kasulaitis, Rancher, Arivaca, Arizona

Delma Garcia, Tohono O’odham Nation

Evelyn Juan Manuel, Tohono O’odham Nation

Gary Brasha, Santa Cruz Valley Citizens Council

Rich Bohman, Santa Cruz Valley Citizens Council

Guests {Names were taken from a copy of the sign-in sheet and many were
illegible.}

Hector Aguirre, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Pacific Southwest, San Francisco,
California

Jonathan Ammon, Arizona Office of Homeland Security, Phoenix, Arizona

Darlene Andrews, Council Member, Tohono O’odham Nation, Sells, Arizona

Regis Andrew, S. F Ordar (sp.?) District, Arizona

Robbie Aonan (sp.?), Sells, Arizona

Cornelius Antonne, Tohono O’odham Nation, Sells, Arizona

Letticia Baltazar, Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, Tucson, Arizona

Alexandra Von Barsewhisch, Berlin, Germany

Nancy Bohman, Santa Cruz Valley Citizens Council

Dan Brocious, Smithsonian Institute, Arizona

Anne Browning, Udall Center, University of Arizona

Marianne Bruonotz (sp?)

Ty Cáwéz, Coordinator, Arizona Tribal Border 2012, Tempe, Arizona

Roger DiRosa, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona

Gerald Fayvant, (sp.?), Tohono O’odham Nation

Marcom (sp.?) Flores

Robert Frost, Green Valley, Arizona

Ethel Garcia, Tohono O’odham Nation

Nina Hepner, Native American Environmental Protection Coalition,
Temecula, California

Jason Hill, Los Coyotes Environmental, Warner Springs, California

Artemio Hops

Shanna Ioane, Tohono O’odham Nation

Laurence D. José, Sells, Arizona

L. J. Juan, Sells, Arizona

Rob Kasulaitis, Rancher, Arivaca, Arizona

Staffer for John Kyl, Senator, Tucson, Arizona

Bill and Ellen Kurtz, Amado, Arizona

John Lawson, Council Member, Tohono O’odham Nation

Shela McFarlin, BLM, Tucson, Arizona

Homer Marks, Sr., Tohono O’odham Nation, RCMP, Sells, Arizona

Robert Merideth, Udall Center, University of Arizona

David B. Miller, CBP/BP, Department of Homeland Security, Tucson,
Arizona

Denise Moreno, University of Arizona

Ted Noor, [?????]

Fred Orosco, Tohono O’odham Nation

Paul Rasmussen, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

Ana C. Rivas, Douglas, Arizona

Celia Rivas, University of Arizona

Lorinda Sam, Tohono O’odham Nation

Placido dos Santos, ADEQ, Tucson, Arizona

Hiram Sarabia, San Diego, California

Carol and Jim Siorggett (sp.?), Arizona, 35646

Doralina Skidmore, Congressmen Ginjava’s (sp?) Office, Tucson, Arizona

Britann Smith, Tucson, Arizona

Colin Soto, Cocopah Elders, Somerton, Arizona

Amos Stevens, Tohono O’odham Nation

Sandra Stone, Oversight Courier, Canoa Ranch Trust, Green Valley,
Arizona

David Tautolo (sp?), Tohono O’odham Nation

Olivia Villegus, Legislative Courier, NRC, Tohono O’odham Nation

Daniel Wirth, Office of the Secretary, Department of Interior, Tucson,
Arizona

Metta Young, University of Arizona

Background

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or the Board) is an
independent advisory committee that is managed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  It advises the U. S. President
and Congress on good-neighbor practices along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The focus is on the environmental and infrastructure needs of the U. S.
states that are contiguous to Mexico.

Welcome and Introductions

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEM), EPA, welcomed board members and guests to the first meeting of
the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) on tribal land—the Tohono
O’odham Nation. As the new director of OCEM, Mr. DeLeon thanked the
board members, the EPA staff, local officials, speakers, tribal members,
former board members, and interested members of the public for providing
their ideas on how best to balance the critical needs for security and
environmental protection.

Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Chairperson, Director, Institute for Regional
Studies of the Californias, San Diego State University, stated the
importance of the good turnout of Board members and local
representatives, because the information provided by them would be
helpful in directing messages and reports to the U. S. President and
Congress.  He looked forward to the interaction between Board members,
Tribal authorities, Tribal members, and other interested participants.

Ned L. Norris, Jr., Vice Chairman, welcomed participants to the Tohono
O’odham Nation and described the Nation’s past and present
geography.  He acknowledged two tribal council members Darlene Andrews
and John Lawson. Next, he introduced Councilman Edward Encinas, who has
operated the Elders Program for the Santa Vera District Council, and who
would offer a Tribal Blessing on the meeting.

Councilman Edward Encinas asked the Creator to provide a blessing on the
Tribal leaders, Tribal elders, soldiers in foreign lands, meeting
participants and the environment.  He asked for the meeting to provide
enlightenment to everyone present.

After the blessing, Chair Ganster asked board members, EPA staff, other
Federal representatives, and guests to introduce themselves. After the
introductions, he introduced the first speaker, Mike Connolly, from the
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, who founded the EPA at Campo in San
Diego County, is a cultural historian, and plays an important part in
border and regional environmental issues.

Speaker Presentations

Mike Connolly, Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, described the history,
territory, and tribal groups of the Kumeyaay Nation, specifically the
Campo Kumeyaay, and then discussed the environmental issues of concern
to this Nation.  The Campo Kumeyaay Nation’s territory extends into
Mexico. The proximity of the Kumeyaay Nation to Mexico provided some
protection from the policy of extermination practiced in the 1850s in
California. There are four Kumeyaay reservations in Baja, California and
12 different tribal reservations in San Diego County.  Some clan names
and territories are shared with the Cocopah Indians and the 17 other
tribes in San Diego County.

One issue of concern to the Kumeyaay Nation relates to the
transportation of hazardous waste, such as propane, by trucks along
highways and on a railway that extends into Mexico and back into the
United States. The Nation has an emergency response plan, a cooperative
agreement with the San Diego County Hazardous Incidence Response Team,
and Tribal members are certified with the California Specialized
Training Institute for emergency responses.

Other issues are the destruction of vegetation and ground contamination
with human waste from illegal immigrants. The clampdown on the border
has had cultural impacts, because the Nation extends into Mexico and
people have traditionally been able to pass back and forth across the
border. Recently, the Kumeyaay Border Task Force was formed to
facilitate transboundary contacts.

Technical assistance has been provided to the Kumeyaay in Mexico to
improve water quality and the water system.  A Mexican law requiring a
fee for new drinking water wells makes it difficult for communities to
improve their water supply.  Agriculture usage is exempt from ground
water usage restrictions in both Mexico and the United States.  The laws
separating surface water from ground water make no sense in this area,
because the underground water comes to the surface.  Underground water
comes from hundreds of small finger aquifers, so using a formula that
treats all the aquifers as one large lake is not workable. Each area
needs to be evaluated on a basin-by-basin basis.

Urban and suburban development near Indian lands has caused problems for
endangered species. Indian lands are used by non-Indian developers for
air pollution offsets and as habitats for endangered species. Market
trading policy forces tribes to reward nearby communities for volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions offsets, if they want to develop
businesses.  The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission has helped
by providing up-front allocations to tribes whenever a market trading
program is established.

The final issue related to taxes that are paid to the state and not
returned to the tribes in California.  The only tax not paid by Indians
is for earnings on tribal lands.  All other earnings are taxed by the
State of California, including non-reservation earnings by members,
non-Indian reservation worker earnings, commercial profits, property
taxes for Non-Indian owned land on reservations, and gasoline and other
sales tax. Casino earnings are not taxed because they are
government-owned.

Questions and Comments

Steven Niemeyer: Does the Tribal Government receive any portion of state
sales tax as municipalities do?

Mike Connolly: Cities and counties receive a portion of sales tax, but
this is not shared with the Tribal Government, even though the Tribal
Government provides governmental services such as fire protection,
ambulance service, safe drinking water, and road improvements.

Steven Niemeyer: What type of relationship does the Tribe have with the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection?

Mike Connolly:  The relationship is good right now.  Campo is one of the
main headquarters for the border area, so there is a lot of activity
including helicopters overhead and sirens. It’s like a war zone.

Ned Norris, Jr.: What is the Campo Tribe doing with alternative energy
projects?

Mike Connolly:  The Campo Tribe is building the largest wind energy
project on a United States Reservation.

Colin Soto, Tribal Elder Spokesperson, Cocopah Indian Tribe

The Cocopah Indian reservation is located on the Mexican, Arizona, and
California borders.  The main problems are illegal immigrants, Homeland
Security measures, lack of surface water, and endangered species.  The
last vestige of animal life is on the reservation in Yuma County.
Homeland Security efforts to clear the area to find immigrants are
destroying the habitat and making it impossible to go down to the river,
because it is gated. Agents are flying noisy helicopters over the
reservation at night and harassing tribal members in their own homes.
Mr. Soto made a plea for the Homeland Security officers to recognize the
Cocopah members, treat them with respect, and to allow border crossings
by family members.

Questions and Comments

 Is the solution better communication between the Cocopah Nation and the
U. S. authorities or is it moving the patrolled areas outside the
reservation?

Colin Soto  Better training for personnel is one solution, so they know
how to treat native people.

Amanda Aguirre:  Has Sherry Cordova, Chairman of the Cocopah Tribe met
with the Border Patrol in Yuma to address this issue?

Colin Soto:  They have met on numerous occasions, but often nothing
comes of the talks. He reminded the Board that he does not speak for the
Tribal Government, but for the Tribal Elders, who have differences with
the Tribal Government.

Ned Norris commented that the Tohono O’odham Nation is impacted in the
same way as the Cocopah.  He suggested that the United States needs to
revisit its policy on immigration to allow tribes that have members on
both sides of the border to have easy access. He noted that the Board
would be visiting one of the most vulnerable places along the border of
the Tohono O’odham and Cocopah border with Mexico. He pleaded with the
Board for their support in addressing these issues.

Chair Ganster:  Is the Mexican Governments doing enough to help the
Nation with this issue?

Ned Norris The United States of American and Mexico need to have a
concerted joint effort to allow tribes impacted by these problems to
actively participate in decision-making on immigration policy.

DFO Koerner announced that reading materials and Board reports were
available, and that a public comment session would start at noon.  Chair
Ganster briefly described the Board’s role as an independent advisory
committee to the U. S. President and Congress.  The Board does not speak
for the EPA, which supplies management and support for the Board.  What
is learned from public meetings will be included in Reports and meetings
with Congress and governmental agencies.  Next, he introduced Jonathan
Ammon, Southwest Border Specialist, and Rose Whitehair, Travel Liaison,
Office of Homeland Security, State of Arizona, who would discuss
Homeland Security efforts, cooperation, and effects on the environment.

Jonathan Ammon, Southwest Border Specialist, Arizona Department of
Homeland Security, discussed his role in Homeland Security,
opportunities for cooperation with environmental interests, secondary
degradation due to immigration, and environmental accidents and
pollution in the border area.  The border area includes six states, 14
cities, 26 U. S. Federally-recognized Native American Tribes, and 6.3
million people in the U.S. and 5.5 million in Mexico. The La Paz
agreement between Mexico and the United States, a mutual agreement for
environmental protection and conservation, and a framework for a system
of notification for emergency situations, is an example of binational
cooperation.

The challenges for Homeland Security from an environmental perspective
are resource degradation from illegal immigration, potential acid spills
from train derailments, and the need for bi-national and tri-national
response agreements.  Mr. Ammon then described the goals of four
cooperative efforts the Border 2012, the Emergency Management Committee
of the Arizona-Mexico Commission, the Bi-National Training Exercises,
and the Borderland Management Task Force.

The goals of the Emergency Management Committee address joint training
in hazardous waste, fire fighting, bio-terrorism, resource exchange, and
the coordination of critical incident responses.  Bi-National Training
Exercises are concentrated on weapons of mass destruction, biological
contamination, chemical spills, and responses. Mr. Ammon described a
train derailment and environmental acid spill that occurred on August
17, 2005, that contaminated water in both countries, which was dealt
with quickly due to the agreements between the two countries. The
Borderlands Management Task Force (BMTF) is an inter-governmental forum
that includes Federal, tribal, state and local governments that
addresses environmental and immigration issues.

Questions and Comments

Chair Ganster: Where does the money come from for all the joint
exercises, training, and the BMTF?

Jonathan Ammon: The BTMF is a volunteer organization. The Bi-National
Training Exercises receives some Federal funding. The International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Fire Departments in cities
and both countries provide resources.

Manuel Ayala:  Are you posed to deal with air pollution?

Mr. Ammon: This is a potential problem that needs to be discussed.

Mr. Niemeyer: In regard to the train derailment, how was the
notification implemented?

Mr. Ammon: The notification between sister cities was immediate.
Contingency plans were implemented and Arizona responders went 40
kilometers into Mexico to help out.

Rose Whitehair, Tribal Liaison, Arizona Office of Homeland Security,
eloquently described the issues and concerns of the 22 tribes and
300,000 persons, whose lands cover 30 percent of Arizona. The major
concerns and activities include

Tribes have been left out of Congressional acts; and the Homeland
Security Act does not recognize the legal status of tribes. Only two
Federal documents, the National Response Plan and the National Incident
Management System, recognize the tribes.

The tribal areas have been divided into five regions, each with an
advisory council consisting of representatives from the fire
departments, law enforcement, emergency management, and county, state,
city, and tribal governments.

The Homeland Security Coordination Council has tribal representatives.

In the Tohono O’odham area children can no longer have bicycles,
because they are stolen by the Mexican immigrants, and armed guards
accompanied her on a visit to the river, because of danger from snipers.

Some tribal areas do not have local 911 responders, so calls may be
forwarded to distant cities. There is no trauma assistance in some
tribes.

Some of their initiatives are outreach to all the tribes, grant
application workshops, and one-to-one visits to determine needs and
problems. Cultural awareness is needed for the border patrol so they can
learn more about Indian customs and history. The Tri-national idea is
needed to focus on problems that affect all tribes.  The Arizona Counter
Terrorism Information Center has created a category to include sacred
sites and holy lands.  Medicine men need to be included in exercises and
disaster drills, so customs will be followed.

Questions and Comments

Amanda Aguirre: How many tribes have engaged in tabletop exercises?

Ms. Whitehair: The Navajo and Hopi tribes recently did a tabletop
session on a smallpox disaster drill and they have planned a drill for
November 3, 2005.  Several other tribes are working together including
the Cocopah, the White Mountain Apache, and the Tohono O’odham Nation.

Ms. Aguirre: Are counties and agencies communicating with tribes?

Ms. Whitehair: Cooperation is improving slowly. In Yuma County, a threat
mitigation includes three tribes.  The Navajo and Hopi were able to get
50 different agencies to work together on the smallpox disaster drill.

Ned Norris: Please explain the term Tri-national?

Ms. Whitehair:  Binational focuses on two nations Mexico and the United
States. Tri-national includes the Indian nations, because they are
sovereign nations. Mr. Norris added that a lot of effort is being made
to change the Homeland Security Act to recognize the sovereign tribal
nations and to provide funds directly to the tribes.  Ms. Whitehair said
that she will be speaking to the National Congress of American Indians
to encourage their 250 tribes to focus on the border issues.

 Judith Gans, Udall Center for Policy Studies, University of Arizona,
Tucson, described immigration in terms of the global context, key
issues, politics, and the challenges for reform.  Globally, there are
about 200 million immigrants, with roughly 42 million or 30 percent in
the U. S. and Canada. Immigration accounts for 60 percent of the U. S.
population growth, including births and immigrants.  Arizona has the
highest number of undocumented immigrants, about nine percent of the
state’s population. Since the l970’s, the immigrants country of
origin has shifted from Europe to Latin American, Asia, and Africa. From
the mid-60’s, the primary architecture for permanent immigration has
been family reunification, but the pressure now comes from economic
motivations to provide for scarce labor. It is estimated that about 30
percent of the U. S. foreign-born are undocumented; the rest are
refugees or naturalized citizens. The rate of illegal immigration has
exceeded legal immigration, including those who have expired visas and
illegal border crossers. Immigration laws are out of balance with the
global economic realities.

While border control and national security have become intertwined, good
intelligence about terrorists is more important for national security
than border control. The emphasis on terrorism in immigration laws has
created a hostile atmosphere for persons who cross the border for
legitimate reasons or for economic motivations. Economic factors have
forced the hiring of un-skilled, undocumented workers in employment that
is not out-sourceable.    Provision of English language acquisition,
education, health care, and welfare services to unauthorized immigrants
has an impact on fiscal policy and has created differences between
political parties. The cultural impact of immigration is lessened by the
fact that the United States has a history of integrating people of
diverse cultures.

Questions and Comments

Gary Gillen: Is there research to indicate the amount of money that
flows out of the

U. S. because of illegal immigration?

Ms. Gans: Estimates of remittances to people in other countries are
probably not reliable.

Robert Varady commented that security is now paramount in immigration
policy even though illegal immigrants have rarely been connected with
terrorism.   Ms. Gans added that immigration laws and the Patriot Act
have created a pretext for arresting people.

Amanda Aguirre: Has the Udall Center done any studies of the impact of
low-skilled workers on the economy and specifically individual
industries, such as agriculture, hotels, and construction? What is the
economic impact of human trafficking?

Ms. Gans:  The construction industry in Arizona would probably collapse
without the low-skilled, undocumented workers. Consumers benefit from
lower construction costs.  Ms. Gans will look into the
industry-by-industry impacts and the financial impacts of human
trafficking and report back to the Board. Mayor Rose reminded the Board
that the criminal element in human and drug trafficking is a huge issue
in border security.  Chair Ganster stated that the laws need to
recognize the importance of the global economy in influencing the amount
of illegal immigration, so the dangerous situation at the border can be
ameliorated.

Public Comments

Joaquin Murrieta, Sonoran Institute, spoke from the Mexican standpoint
in noting that some Mexican towns near the border are dependent on
employment from helping those who cross the border.  He would like to
see more Mexican and Native American representation on the Board, so
their perspectives could influence Board decisions. The Sonoran Desert
is a shared resource between three nations and everyone needs to
understand how people live in the area. Chair Ganster noted that Mexican
guest speakers and member of the Consejo Consultivos are valued
contributors to the Board’s decisions.

Mary Kasulaitis, Rancher, Arivaca, Arizona, emphasized with pictures and
words the huge amount of trash that is left by illegal immigrants on the
hundreds of trails in Arizona, Texas, and California. The National
Forest Service, the Wildlife Refuge Service, and Indian tribes do not
have a budget to hire people to pick up the trash. Both the Federal
Government and the state governments need to budget funds for trash
pickup.

Delma Garcia, Tohono O’odham Nation, reported on the large number of
trucks filled with illegal immigrants that pass through her community.
The native police force and the U. S. Border Patrol are not controlling
human and drug trafficking, which has created a dangerous situation for
her family and community. The Border Patrol chases people thorough her
property and their fence has been destroyed.  Local citizens have been
killed because they were involved in the drug trade, but the family
doesn’t know who killed them. Some families house illegal immigrants,
who may be responsible for passing diseases to children in the
community.

Evelyn Juan Manual, Tohono O’odham Nation, reiterated the concerns
about infectious diseases from human waste and trash, which contaminate
villages and surrounding communities. Another concern is the attitudes
of the border patrol towards people of color.  Her nation works with
other nations, countries and municipalities, because they provide mutual
support in times of disaster.

Gary Brasha, Santa Cruz Valley Citizens Council, complained about a
Border Patrol checkpoint on I-19, 22 miles from the border, which
created a huge trash problem in the river area and foothills from
immigrants who avoid the checkpoint.  Property owners have had to hire
dump trucks to remove trash from area. Some of the trash included
hypodermic needles that requiring gloves to avoid exposure to diseases.
Border Patrol policies have created environmental hazards in areas far
from the borders.

Rich Bohman, Santa Cruz Valley Citizens Council, agreed that a permanent
checkpoint was easy to avoid and created dangerous and hazardous
situations for people in the Santa Cruz Valley, because drug smugglers
are armed. The main concern is to stop illegal immigration at the
border.  He recognized that the Border Patrol had a difficult job.

Luncheon Speakers

Paula Stigler, Environmental Department, Pala Band of Indians, described
a drinking water system project with the tribal communities in Baja
California. The Environmental Department of the Pala Band of Mission
Indians made a donation to the Tribal Council in Northern Baja to help
attend meetings.  The CUNA, a non-governmental agency in Baja, wrote a
grant for Border 2012 Program funds for drinking water projects in
Mexico.  The Pala Band of Indians was asked by EPA to sponsor a grant to
fund Mexican tribes working on water infrastructure and drinking water
projects. The 2005-2006 grant will fund construction of some new
infrastructure for drinking water is several communities.

Hiram Sarabia described the work of Ja Jan (Pai Pai for “Good
Water”), a binational coalition of academics, non-governmental
organizations, and community members, that address coastal, inland, and
drinking water issues at the community level.  In addition to generating
reliable information sources about water quality in the border region,
the coalition provides impacted communities with the capacity to
understand the drinking water issues and to do their own monitoring and
improve drinking water practices.  Communities are also connected to a
resource network, including several universities.

Mr. Sarabia showed a videotape highlighting the accomplishments of the
U. S. EPA-funded project sponsored by the coalition. They worked with
eight indigenous communities in Baja California to improve the quality
of drinking water from surface water sources.  The coalition supported
the work of CUNA in analyzing water contamination and training
communities to evaluate the quality of their water supply. The National
Commission for Indigenous Development, a Mexican agency, also
contributed resources for improving the infrastructure. One of the main
problems is the lack of an electric power supply to draw water from
wells which are not contaminated. The Mexican Government is investing
$500,000 in these communities to improve drinking water.

Questions and Comments-

Peter Silva  Are CUNA and the Mexican Indigenous Development Agency
(CDI) providing any funding for in-kind services for this project.

Ms. Stigler The CDI has been able to provide almost $600,000 for two
projects that will be starting in November to dig some new wells in San
Antonio [Enequ ????] and San Jose de La Zorra. EPA will provide funding
for lines from the wells to property lines.

Peter Silva Will the communities own the systems, and will they be
provided with training on how to operate the systems?

Ms. Stigler  Yes, the tribal communities will own the wells and be
responsible for monitoring and maintenance. Training will be provided by
Ja Jan and Aqualink.

Stephen Niemeyer  Is the surface drinking water purified or boiled?

Ms. Stigler  People are resistant to chlorination and lack resources to
boil water, so there are a lot of gastrointestinal diseases. The new
wells will be deep, because many shallow hand-dug wells are
contaminated.

Speaker Presentations

Update on Activities of the Mexican Council for Sustainable Development
by

Rene Cordova and Flavio Olivieri, Mexican Consejo Consultivo Liaisons to
the GNEB

René Córdova (speaking in Spanish with a translator) described the
Consulting Council as a multilateral organization that provides advice
to the Secretary of Ecology in the Natural Resources Department in
Mexico. Using a series of slides, Mr. Córdova described the structure
as composed of six regional councils and one national council.
Representatives come from state governments, state congresses,
non-governmental organizations, businesses, academia, women’s groups,
young people’s groups, and towns and villages. There are four
commissions covering matters related to the environment.

The Commission on Border Affairs and Pollution Prevention gave several
recommendations to the Secretary of Ecology in September, 2005. The
recommendations were as follows

The government should budget resources for the remediation of the
Hermosillo toxic waste source.

The government should continue its contribution to the Border
Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) at the $3 million dollar
level.

The government should add additional resources to the FY 2006 budget for
the implementation of the toxic release inventory and should double the
number of companies that report toxic substances released to the
environment.

The list of reportable substances should be equivalent to those in the
U. S. and Canada.

Participation in the SEMARNAT in the Border 2012 Program should be
improved and more resources assigned.

The National Council is interested in the Border 2012 Program, reform of
the BECC and the North American Development Bank (NADBank), the
Tri-National Commission on Environmental Cooperation and the Southern
Border Environmental Program.  The multi-laterals favor the Stockholm
conventions for the elimination of PCBs and protection of global
diversity. Another initiative is to encourage collaboration between
Cuba, Mexico, and the United States on reducing environmental pollution
in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Córdova described the results of a May 2005 meeting of the Border
Encounter on the Environment, a group of civil organizations and
environmentalists on both sides of the border, which called for more
collaboration on border environmental issues.  Issues were the social,
economic, the environmental impact of NAFTA, and security policies at
the border.  Immigration reform must take into account environmental
impacts, the destruction of Indian resources, and the imbalance of
worker status between the U. S. and Mexico. One suggestion was that if
the U. S. would invest in economic development in Mexico’s most
depressed places as much as it does on border security, the need to
migrate would be reduced.

Questions and Comments

Mayor Rose: In the fast growing border areas, is the Council looking at
best management practices of grading, infrastructure, etc.?

Mr. Córdova Yes, one of their concerns was urban development and rapid
population growth that require several years of planning to protect the
environment.  Another problem is the offering of tax exemptions and
other concession to compete for maquiladoras plants.

Chair Ganster:  Why is the Mexican Government considering a reduction of
its budget for the BECC?

Mr. Córdova:  The Mexican and U. S. Governments are concerned about the
independent role of the Commission in reporting on legalities and
compliance with environmental legislation. Monetary participation should
be based on the size of a country’s budget or its economy.

Ned Norris agreed that the U. S. should revisit its policy and
relationship to Mexico to help Mexico develop its economy, create jobs
and opportunities for Mexican peoples to reduce the need for immigration
by improving their standard of living.

Melody Sees, Environmental Director, Los Coyotes Band of Indians, San
Diego County, spoke of the security and environmental problems affecting
the Los Coyotes Reservation, the Cahuilla people, and other nearby
border tribal reservations.  The chief issues included

Improving communication between the Indian tribes, the Federal agencies,
CUNA, and Mexican tribes through Tribal Caucus meetings, Border Task
Forces, the National Coordinator meetings, and other meetings

Racial profiling of dark-skinned people

Contamination of shared aquifers with Tijuana due to different water
standards

Water transfers and pesticide pollution affecting tribes in the
Coachella Valley using water from the Colorado River and the Salton Sea

Increasing air pollution and lack of monitors on the Los Coyotes
Reservation

Increasing rate of asthma in the canyon areas below their reservation

Lack of Border Patrol and tribal police to control illegal immigrants
and their dumping of trash and human waste

Forest fires starting from campfires on trails used by immigrants

Depletion of surface water, underground water supplies, and springs from
developmental growth, water transfers, and drought

Endangerment of big horn sheep due to destruction of habitat by
developers

Air pollution from pesticides that flow into the Salton Sea and attach
to dust particles

Unlicensed dumps on reservations which are not policed by the local
sheriffs

Unfunded Federal mandates from Homeland Security and FEMA

Border fencing which destroys cultural sites and are costly and
ineffective

Art Guajardo, Assistant Chief, U. S. Customs and Border Protection,
introduced two members of the CBP, David Gueterza, Agent-in-Charge of
the Casa Grande Station, and Supervisor Agent David Bemiller, who is
responsible for public lands liaison. He described the responsibilities
of the Border Patrol as protecting the United States from the entry and
weapons of terrorists.  The Border Patrol works with the governments in
Mexico, South America, and Central America to gain information about
potential terrorist threats. The Border Patrol has 11,000 agents to
patrol the northern coastal areas and the southern borders of the U. S.
His office is responsible for border crossings in Arizona.

San Diego and El Paso have improved, but the weakest link is between
Yuma and New Mexico. Borders are out-of-control as illegal entrants move
from California borders to Arizona and beyond. In 2004, in the Arizona
Corridor, they arrested 438,000 aliens. Recent  improvements in border
control consist of more agents, new roads, fencing, improved lighting,
sensors, cameras, and large expenditures.

The Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI) goals are to improve border
security, impair smuggling operations, reduce smuggling violence, and
reduce smuggling related to criminal activity, such as stolen vehicles.
The ABCI coordinates with other entries such as CBP Air, EIS
Investigation, and the Transportation Safety Administration. Patrol
units are positioned on major and minor roads, so local residents are
likely to encounter patrols. Aliens are sent to Nogales for processing
and removal. Agents now have the authority to expedite removal without
an immigration judge.

The longer an agent stays in an area, the more he is able to identify
and develop relationships with local residents. Stopping persons is
dependent on actions, location, time of day, and direction, because
agents cannot tell who is criminal or not by racial or ethnic identity.
Vehicles are targeted by their large capacity, but occasionally small
cars are used. If a vehicle escapes into the interior, it becomes the
responsibility of the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

In California, local authorities have told them that the quality of life
and the environment have improved due to immigration controls in the
past 10 years.  The main environmental problems are trash, road-building
damage, and damage from off-road chases.  Dave Bremiller added that the
Corps of Engineers helps build roads and fences; and Gulf South Research
is employed to do environmental and cultural assessments. Mr. Guajardo
described other problems related to trespass on the Tohono O’odham
Nation lands, publicly-managed lands, and ranches. Since 97 percent of
aliens come from Mexico, the consuls of Mexico could provide cultural
awareness training to Border Patrol agents.

Questions and Comments

Robert Varady: How many of the 438,000 arrested might have engaged in
criminal behavior if they were not caught? Is everyone treated as a
potential terrorist?

Mr. Guajardo stated that 23,000 of those apprehended did have criminal
history in the U. S.  The act of illegal entry is a violation of the
law, punishable by imprisonment. Everyone is treated as a potential
voluntary returnee, unless they are caught in a criminal act.

Paul Michel:  Does the Border Patrol have any authority to use
apprehended undocumented migrants to help clean up the trash?

Mr. Guajardo:  Those that are apprehended are asked to put their trash
into bags.  To ask or force them to pick up trash left by un-apprehended
aliens would violate the Slave Labor Act, if they are not compensated.
Mayor Rose commented that Operation Gateway along the California Border
vastly improved the environment in the past 10 years.

Roger De Rosa, Refuge Manager, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge,
discussed issues relating to managing public lands, such as those under
the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
the National Park Service, and National Wildlife Refuges on the Mexican
Border in Arizona. The Cabreza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
encompasses 860,000 acres with 56 miles on the Mexican border; and is
also a Congressionally-designated wilderness area.  The problem comes
from illegal aliens or smugglers of drugs and people, who have been
driven to the rugged area by actions of the Border Patrol in securing
other areas.

Mr. De Rosa likened the struggle to warfare and disaster management.
The Refuge and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument have been
declared the most endangered refuges in the nation.  Major damage has
been done by illegally created roads and trails used by smugglers and
law enforcement alike.  Trash and drug seizures are measured in
tons—over 518,000 pounds of marijuana was seized. (Note: Board Member
later queried following statement:) On the Arizona border, there were
251 deaths from shootouts between the Border Patrol and smugglers.
Fires started by aliens consumed 3,500 acres in the Refuge and 80,000
acres in the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range. His major goal in the past
three years has been to avoid an environmental train wreck between
Homeland Security and environmental laws and regulations

Homeland Security cannot escape the National Environmental Policy Act
and the Wilderness Act, which mandates no permanent roads in wilderness
areas. Cooperation is needed with the Refuge managers to protect natural
resources.  However, there are only two Refuge officers to cover the
area.  The placement of barriers along the border has created a funnel
for illegal persons into the Refuge. Changing immigration laws could
stop illegal aliens, but would not affect criminal drug activity.

Conflicts are basically related to lack of resources to handle the
problem. Most of the solutions are unfunded mandates, including funds
for additional air assets, search and rescue, criminal interdiction,
immigration enforcement, vehicle removal, and trash removal.
Restoration of wilderness areas, protection of endangered species, and
destruction of illegal roads are impossible until the border is secure.

Chair Ganster thanked all of the presenters, public commenters, board
members and staff for their participation, and the Tohono O’odham
Nation for hosting the meeting. The meeting was adjourned.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005						8:20 a.m.

GNEB Business Meeting

Board Members Present Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Chair, Larry Allen, Gedi
Cibas, Ph.D., Gary Gillen, Stephen Niemeyer, Ned Norris, Jr., David
Randolph, Robert Varady, Ph.D., Ann Marie Wolf, and Keiko Herai, for
Douglas Smith, Sony Electronics

Federal Members Present Alven Lam, Rafael DeLeon, Elaine Koerner, James
Stefanov

Resource Specialists Manuel Ayala, Jacob Macias, Sally Spener

Welcome Remarks

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEM), thanked board members for their contributions and looked forward
to working with them in the future. DFO Koerner asked members to fill
out a questionnaire in their folders that could capture some of the
benefits of the GNEB, and to fax completed questionnaires to the OCEM
office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy of the 8th Report’s tracking for
distribution report was in member’s folder and outreach activities
could be added.

Approval of the Minutes

Chair Ganster asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 10,
2005, Washington, D.C., Board Meeting.  Gary Gillen moved, and Robert
Varady seconded, a motion to approve the minutes.  The minutes were
approved unanimously.  Chair Ganster asked members to send any last
minute minor changes to DFO Koerner.

Membership Update

DFO Koerner provided an update of the board membership.  Four members
will be ending their terms on the Board: Peter Silva, Mayor Rose, Larry
Allen, and Gedi Cibas. Gedi Cibas said that the GNEB had provided
positive benefits for the border region, especially in regard to
problems shared with Mexico, such as the aquifers. He noted that a
management scheme for the aquifers, which is presently being discussed,
could set a global precedent. The new board members include James
Stefanov, USGS, Department of the Interior; Carlos Marin, USIBWC;
Captain Randy Grinnell, U.S. Public Health Service, HHS; and Carl
Edlund, EPA Region 6.

Performance Measures Workgroup Report-Out

Robert Varady provided some background on the Performance Measures
Workgroup.  The Workgroup had developed a list of items, based on
quantifiable performance measures that members can use to enumerate
their activities on a yearly basis.  A website is being developed by
OCEM that will allow capture of more complex activities.  Responses to
the questionnaire would be analyzed, and the questionnaire would be
revised as needed.

Report-Out from the Transportation/Air Workgroup, 9th Report

David Randolph reported that the Workgroup had drafted a report which
dealt with three areas: (1) ports of entry and the related
transportation infrastructure, (2) emissions, and

(3) mass transit and other public transportation. The draft was
circulated to board members and their comments were incorporated into
the present draft.  Mr. Randolph described some of the issues in each
area and noted that each issue would have a recommendation.  Comments
from the Department of Transportation (DOT) were attached at the end of
the report.  For example, DOT would like to have the section about the
NAFTA trucking issue deleted.  Comments from the Board on substantive
issues were requested.

DFO Koerner stated that the draft report is to be completed for Board
circulation on December 8, 2005.  She asked for Board member comments by
November 4, 2005. An electronic copy of the report would be distributed
for ease of commentary. The time for the next conference call to amend
the draft report, based on written comments, was set for November 8th at
200 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Several members asked to be added to the
conference call.  Robert Varady suggested that even though the focus was
on environmental issues and transportation, other aspects could be
included such as hazardous materials.  It was decided to reference a
previous GNEB Report that covered that subject.

Report-Out from the Cultural Resources Workgroup, 9th Report

Ann Marie Wolf noted that the latest version of the Cultural Resources
Workgroup Report should be dated October 17, 2005.  Ms. Wolf recognized
the contribution of former GNEB member, John Klein.  Jim Stefanov had
reviewed previous GNEB reports and determined that natural resources had
been dealt with significantly in the 6th Report, but that cultural
resources was barely mentioned in previous reports.  The draft report
has a section on natural resources which updates the 6th report.  The
rest of the report focuses on cultural resources. Items from this
meeting would be incorporated in the next draft.  The committee wants
input on examples, partnerships, projects, etc. from Board members from
all the states represented, as the main focus has been on Arizona. The
present report will be sent out electronically for member’s comments.

DFO Koerner asked members to send comments on Cultural Resources
Workgroup report to OCEM by November 4, 2005.  A conference call was set
for November 8, 2005, at 300 p.m. EST.  Sally Spener, USIBWC, asked that
the prehistoric sites and Spanish Colonial ranch sites near Falcon Dam,
as well as, other 20th Century sites that need protection, be included
in the report.  Ms. Rose agreed and requested Ms. Spener to send the
relevant text to her for inclusion in the cultural issues report.

Ms. Koerner brought up the idea of asking Federal Agency representatives
on the GNEB to write a brief synopsis of their border environmental
activities through 2005 for the 9th Report.  A sample write-up, prepared
by Sally Spener, would be distributed as guidance.  Mr. Varady added
that incorporating brief reports from non-Board Federal agency’s
border environmental work could also add to the Report’s value.  In
response to Chair Ganster’s question about a regular meeting of
Federal agencies with border control interests, it was decided that the
GNEB was the main forum for Federal Agency’s border environmental
discussions. Larry Allen, Malpai Borderlands Group, noted that in the
Department of Agriculture, the NRCS, the Coronado National Forest, and
the Cleveland National Forest all have active programs with Mexico.  Mr.
Varady thought that the Department of Homeland Security’s border
activities should be included.

Selection of Theme for the 10th GNEB Report

To prepare for the discussion on the theme of the 10th GNEB Report,
Chair Ganster listed several suggested themes and topics on a flip
chart. DFO Koerner suggested the following basic criterion for Board
Reports

Relevance to the Board’s mission of advising the President and
Congress on border environmental issues

Utilization of board member expertise.

Relevance to current administration’s interests

Need for national attention on pressing border issues.

Potential for Federal action.

Chair Ganster listed and described the following themes for discussion

Cooperative conservation

Transborder environmental cooperation

Homeland Security and the border environment

Harnessing technology to protect the border environment

Integrated pest management at the border

Border tribes, fences and roads, and the environment

Border industry and environmental management systems

During the break, members voted on the list of items.  The theme
receiving the most votes was Homeland Security and the Border
Environment. {Not stated, but implied.}  During the discussion, it was
suggested to re-name the topic Border Environment and Security.  The
problems of border tribes, fences and roads, and the environment, could
be subsumed under this theme. The impact of roads on Federally-protected
lands might be incorporated also. Another suggestion was to add the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, because criminal acts would
involve customs and border people.  Although, the focus would be on the
environment, the theme was timely in relationship to changes taking
place in the President’s policy on immigration and repatriation. The
theme also met the criteria proposed by DFO Koerner.

DFO Koerner would pursue obtaining a representative from the Department
of Homeland Security on the Board so they could have direct input into
the topic. In terms of process, it was suggested moving quickly to take
advantage of the knowledge learned at this meeting.  A conference call
would be set up for Tuesday, October 26, 2005.

Gary Gillen requested that an electronic copy of Roger De Rosa’s
presentation on the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge be sent to Ann
Marie’s Workgroup. Ms. Koerner would send them a copy.

Choice of Meeting Sites and Dates for 2006

Chair Ganster and DFO Koerner proposed a March14-15, 2006 GNEB meeting
in Washington, D.C. that would coincide with the U. S. Mexico
Chamber’s Annual Border Briefing in order to get more public attention
to the Board’s issues and the launch of the 9th Report.  The Chamber
could be asked to allow a small block of time to present the GNEB 9th
Report. The Board’s Strategic Planning Session could also be done at
the March Meeting, so that all Board members could be present.  Visits
to members of the Administration and Congress could take place on the
day after the meeting on March16, 2005. It was determined that the
meeting dates did not conflict with meeting dates of the Fourth World
Water Forum or the Environmental Council of States.

Members indicated their site preferences for the summer and fall
meetings as Alpine, Texas, Calexico, the Imperial Valley, and San Diego.
 New Mexico was considered difficult because of the loss of board
members who could help with planning. Both the Imperial Valley and San
Diego had many border issues. Alpine, Texas has adequate facilities and
would offer a field trip to Big Bend National Park. The Texas NRCS staff
could help with planning, as could US IBWC. The issues of site selection
were reviewed for proximity to the border, border issues, opportunities
for field trips, attendance by state, local and Federal officials,
tribal concerns, and climate. Other considerations favoring the San
Diego site were the Tijuana River and border issues, the Campo tribe and
riparian water restoration, border fencing and security issues.

After considerable discussion it was determined that the three meetings
locations and dates were as follows

Tuesday, March 14, and Wednesday, March 15, 2006—in Washington, D.C.
Members could visit Congressmen and Administration officials on
Thursday, March 16, 2005.

Tuesday, July 18 and Wednesday, July 19, 2006 – in San Diego,
California

Tuesday, October 24, Wednesday, October 25, and Thursday, October 26,
2006 – in Alpine, Texas

Members who volunteered to work on the Washington, D. C. planning
committee were Gary Gillen, Alven Lam, David Randolph, and Paul Ganster.
Members who volunteered to plan the Alpine, Texas meeting were Gary
Gillen, Stephen Niemeyer, James Stefanov, Sally Spener, and staff from
NRCS in Texas. The Texas meeting would require two and one-half days to
allow adequate time for a field trip to Big Bend National Park.  The
planning committee for the San Diego meeting would consist of Douglas
Smith and Hirai Keiko, who offered a hotel meeting place near Sony
Electronics. {No other names mentioned.}

Board Member Report-Outs

Larry Allen, Malpai Borderlands Group, distributed a report from the
Group and announced that the Group was involved in the White House
Conference on Collaborative Conservation, in St. Louis last month.

Jim Stefanov, U. S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior (DOI),
reported on a cooperative effort by the International Border Area Fire
Council to suppress a forest fire in Tecate. A Borderland Management
Task Force, formed by DOI and Homeland Security, is leading
intergovernmental forums to address issues of security, safety, and
resources along the border; and a Binational Corridor Strategic Plan in
Otay Mesa addresses economic development, transportation, housing, and
the environment.

The project to line the All American Canal is being designed by the
Southern California Water Districts. The design, being submitted to the
California Department of Fish and Game, will address mitigation,
compensation, and endowment of endangered species.

The USGS is working in the lower Rio Grande Valley on the U. S.-Mexico
Border Environmental Health Project that integrates data bases related
to hydrology and land use for both the U. S. and Mexico.  The integrated
data sets would be extended to satellite imagery, digital elevation
models, road, political boundaries, and geology; and could be accessed
via the Internet.

In April, 2005, a U.S.-Mexico Border Symposium on the Management of
Natural and Cultural Resources was held in Los Cruces to exchange
information on transboundary programs, discuss common issues, and
identify opportunities for cooperation. The report would be useful to
the Board’s Cultural Resources Workgroup.  The contact person for the
report is Ramon [Alevas???] in the National Park Service. Dr. P. Patrick
Leahy, the new the Acting Director of the USGS, is well informed on
border issues.  Mr. Stefanov will email his report to OCEM for
distribution.

Manuel Ayala, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, reported
that the NRCS has established a relationship with SEMARNAT, and will
provide technical assistance to a United Nations Natural Resources
Training Center in Monterrey, Mexico, that will train natural resource
managers on rangeland and watershed rehabilitation. NRCS is also working
with Pronatura, a nature conservancy group in Mexico, on the problem of
decimated rangeland. NRCS will assist in the development of a technical
guide. It is expected that this will develop into an exchange program
between U. S. and Mexico experts.

DFO Koerner reported for Paul Michel on EPA Regions 6 and 9 on the
following items

In FY 2005, Region 9 awarded 15 new projects valued at $1 million via
the Border 2012 Competitive Grants Program within the Arizona-Sonora and
California-Baja California Regional Workgroup areas. The projects are
described in the written report.

Upcoming meetings include a Binational Border 2012 in Tijuana on October
29, 2005; an Arizona-Sonora Regional Workgroup meeting in San Carlos,
Sonora on December 2, 2005; a California-Baja California Regional
Workgroup Meeting in San Diego on December 14, 2005; and the Border 2012
National Coordinators meeting on April 26-27, 2006.

In Region 6, Carlos Rincon is the new Director of the EPA El Paso Border
Office. Three meetings in El Paso in Region 6 include the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee (CAAAC) meeting on November 15-17, 2005; a truck
emissions reduction workshop on November 15th, 1005 sponsored by EPA
Region 6 and the Office of Transportation and Air Quality; and a
subgroup of the Border 2012 Air Policy Forum will meet on November 15,
2005.

A New Mexico Colonia Summit meeting will be so-sponsored by NMED and
EPA.

Chair Ganster reported on two events sponsored by the Institute for
Regional Studies

Development of a master’s degree on public administration and
transborder governance conjointly with a Mexican University.

Recent publications are the current issue of Southwest Hydrology from
the University of Arizona, with an article on Transborder watershed
management, and the Tijuana Watershed Atlas.

Robert Varady, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, said that the
Udall Center newsletter could be found on their website   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.  In August,
he met with the Secretary General of the World Water Forum and learned
that the San Pedro basin is registered as one of the local action basins
for the Forum. In the San Pedro Basin, and NOAA-funded project to trying
to adapt a publication called Climate Outlook for the Arizona-Sonora
border area.

David Randolph, Arizona-Mexico Commission, reported that the
Commission’s Environmental Committee will meet on December 1, 2005,
and will focus on water management issues for San Pedro area and
Colorado River.  They will be distributing copies of the GNEB report
related to water management.

Alven Lam, reporting for Shannon Sorzano, HUD, said that the Binational
Commission will meet the following week to discuss housing and cross
border issues. They work with the Mexican Government to establish better
codes for environmental and community planning.

James Stefanov, USGS, noted that the current issue of the Journal of
Groundwater, of the National Groundwater Association, is dedicated to
transboundary aquifers mainly on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Stephen Niemeyer, TCEQ, has put in a request to EPA for training
emergency responses and risk assessment, using the CAMEO software. This
followed an August, 2005, train derailment and truck collision/spill of
propane.  In August, TCEQ signed the Texas Nuevo Leon Strategic Plan. In
August, under the Border Governor’s Conference, a Water Work Table was
created.  PowerPoint presentations on water management are available.
They recommended that the Mexican governors use the BGC Declaration, but
they were not amenable to using the United States product.

Gedi Cibas, New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), announced that for
the first time at the Border Governor’s Conference, a Governor from
Chihuahua, Mexico, stated the necessity of dealing with
binationally-shared aquifers.  He added that the GNEB publications were
influential in this unprecedented change of attitude, but the effect was
probably not measureable. The website is being updated for both format
and content. Mr. Cibas praised DFO Koerner for her outstanding efforts
in supporting the Board; and Chair Ganster for his knowledge and
leadership of the Board.

Ned Norris expressed his gratitude for the Board’s meeting on tribal
lands, and their commitment to tribal environmental and jurisdictional
issues. Chair Ganster thanked Mr. Cibas and other Board members for
their participation.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 a.m.

 PAGE

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

GPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 						  PAGE  5

October 17-19, 2005

GPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting	  PAGE  4

October 17-19, 2005

Audio Associates

301/577-5882


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23694-23696]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09407]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0334; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-027-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted
by a report of a broken forward support fitting at the inboard track of
the inboard flap. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections
of the forward support fitting assemblies of the inboard track of the
left and right inboard flaps for cracking, and corrective actions if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of
the forward support fitting assembly, which could result in loss of
inboard flap control and subsequent loss of airplane control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Ave
SW., Renton, WA 98057. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0334;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-027-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report of a broken forward support fitting assembly
at the inboard track of the inboard flap. During a post-flight taxi,
pilots noticed a FLAP TE DISAGREE message on the engine indication and
crew alerting system (EICAS). Maintenance personnel found that both
components of the forward support fitting assembly had broken, causing
the inboard track and transmission to drop 8 inches into the wheel
well. The airplane had accumulated 22,328 total flight cycles.
Metallurgical analysis found that cracks had initiated at a compound
radius in each component flange common to the main landing gear (MLG)
beam. Each crack was propagated by fatigue and was followed by final
ductile rupture. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could
result in loss of inboard flap control and subsequent loss of airplane
control.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0071,
dated September 12, 2012. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0334.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.
    In addition, the phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in
this proposed AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or
address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 690 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost           Parts cost        Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-frequency eddy current      11 work-hours x $85  None................  $935, per          $645,150, per
 inspection.                      per hour = $935,                           inspection cycle.  inspection
                                  per inspection                                                cycle.
                                  cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                      Labor cost          Parts cost               Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.......................  7 work-hours x $85              $10,000  $10,595, per assembly.
                                     per hour = $595, per
                                     assembly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0334; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-027-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF,
-200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 5753, Trailing edge flaps.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a broken forward support
fitting at the inboard track of the inboard flap. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward support
fitting assembly, which could result in loss of inboard flap control
and subsequent loss of airplane control.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0071, dated
September 12, 2012: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking in the forward support fitting assemblies of
the inboard track of the left and right inboard flaps, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.2.
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-57-0071, dated September 12, 2012. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter,
repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
cycles, except as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0071, dated September 12, 2012, on
which any forward support fitting assembly is replaced: Do the next
inspection before 15,000 flight cycles has accumulated on that
assembly.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0071, dated September 12, 2012, on
which any forward support fitting assembly is replaced: Do the next
inspection before 18,000 flight cycles has accumulated on that
assembly.

(h) Exception to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-0071,
dated September 12, 2012, specifies compliance times ``after the
original issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance times ``after the
effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Paragraphs 3.B.1. and 3.B.3. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-57-

0071, dated September 12, 2012, are not required by this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nancy Marsh,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Ave. NW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 12, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09407 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 73687]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30661]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026]

Curtis-Straus LLC; Application for Renewal of Recognition;
Correction

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
published a document in the Federal Register on October 11, 2011 (76 FR
62850), announcing the application of Curtis-Straus LLC for renewal of
its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL),
and presented the Agency's preliminary finding to deny the application.
The document contained an incorrect docket number. This notice corrects
the docket number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Pasquet, Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3655, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Corrections

    In the Federal Register of October 11, 2011 (76 FR 62850-62856),
correct the docket number as described below.
    1. On page 62850, in the third line of the heading section, change
the Docket No. to read:
    [Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026]
    2. On page 62851, in the first column, change the paragraph titled
``Mail, hand delivery, express mail, or messenger or courier service''
to read:
    Submit one copy of the comments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket
No. OSHA-2009-0026, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. The Docket Office
accepts deliveries (hand, express mail, and messenger and courier
service) during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., E.T.
    3. On page 62851, in the first column, change the paragraph titled
``Instructions'' to read:
    All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket
number (i.e., OSHA-2009-0026). OSHA will place all submissions,
including any personal information provided, in the public docket
without revision, and will make these submissions available online at
http://www.regulations.gov
    4. On page 62856, in the first column, change the second paragraph
under ``V. Preliminary Finding'' to read:
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CSL meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition as an
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the
written request for an extension by the due date for comments (see
DATES above). OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days unless the
requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if the requester does not adequately justify it. To obtain or
review copies of the publicly available information in CSL's
application and other pertinent documents (including exhibits), and all
submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, at the address listed above under ADDRESSES; these materials
also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. OSHA-2009-0026.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 22, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-30661 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P