September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1 

### Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

**Meeting September 24**  **, 2013 12:00** 

**– 4:00 p.m.**  **EPA East Building 1201 Constitution Ave**  **nue , NW**  **Washington, D.C. Call**  **- In:**  **1 -**  **866 -**  **299 -**  **31 88**  **; Conference Code: 202**  **- 233**  **- 0068#**  **Adobe Connect: https://epa.connectsolutions.com/gnebmeetingroom/** 

**F INAL**  

### M **EETING** 

### S **UMMARY** 

### Welcome and Introductions Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB; Mark Joyce, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia Jones

- Jackson, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (OD ACMO) ; Denise Benjamin

- Sirmons (ODACMO) Dr. Diane Austin thanked the GNEB members for their efforts and for participating in the meeting. She noted participants who were registered for the video portion of the meeting via Adobe Connect and conducted a roll call for teleconference

- onl y p articipants. Mr. Mark Joyce also expressed his appreciation to the participants for their work on the advice letter and attendance at this meeting. He praised the Board for their progress to date, which has provided an excellent foundation for writing the advice letter and the 16th Report of the GNEB to the President and Congress of the United States

. Mr. Joyce stated that a quorum of 17 Board members had not been achieved for this meeting. The Board is not able to conduct official business without a quorum. If a quorum is achieved, the GNEB members will be able to discuss the remaining substantive issues in the advice letter . If closure is reached on the substantive issues, the Board may

move to adopt the advice letter

. From that point forward, onl y editorial changes to the advice letter may be made. Without a quorum, however, the participants may proceed with introductions, a discussion of ground rules and a review of the comments to the draft advice letter

. Mr. Joyce reminded th e participants that the meeting was open to the public. Members of the press had indicated that they would attend. Ms. Cy nthia Jones

- Jackson thanked Dr. Austin for her leadership and the workgroup leaders for their contributions to the draft advice letter

. She agreed with Mr. Joyce about the outstanding2 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

progress that the Board has made toward drafting the advice letter and the report
. Ms. Jones

Jackson introduced Ms. Denise Benjamin

- Sirmons, the new director of the new office, ODACMO. Ms. Benjamin

- Sirmons also expressed her appreciation of the service of the GNEB members as well as the efforts of the team at ODACMO who provide logistical support for the Board meetings. She explained the new organizational structure of ODACMO. The office was formed on July 28, 2013, and Ms. Benjamin

- Sirmons assumed her appointment as ODACMO Director on August 12, 2013. The office’ s mission is to facilitate the ability of individuals from a diversit y of backgrounds

—internal and external to EPA

—to provide advic e and recommendations to the Agency on environmental policies and programs. Two guiding principles of the office are EPA’s recognition of the importance of the advisory committees’ work, as confirmed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, and a commitment to facilitating the ability of the advisory committees to achieve their missions within the budgetary constraints that are affecting the federal government

. Reducing the number of face

- to
- face meetings, as implemented by Ms. Jones

- Jackson for the GNEB, is vit al for operating in a time of fiscal restraint and likel y will continue in the future. Ms. Benjamin

- Sirmons asked the participants to share their ideas on making the virtual Board meetings more effective. Ms. Benjamin

- Sirmons also apologized for a change i n schedule that prevented her and Ms. Jones

- Jackson from participating in the full meeting of the Board as she had planned. Dr. Austin responded that the goal of the Board members is to have one face

- to
- face meeting per ye ar, but she recognized that this m ight not be achievable. She thanked the Board members for their willingness to conduct the business of the Board virtuall y via videoconference, email and telephone. Mr. Joyce conducted an official roll call. A quorum of 17 GNEB members was not achieved. He clarified that Alternate members do not have standing to vote on approval of the advice letter

. Ms. Stephanie McCoy (ODACMO) attempt ed to contact the GNEB members not in attendance via telephone to achieve a quorum. 

### Overview of **the Agenda**  Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB Dr. Austin noted that approval of the advice letter was the onl y official action on the meeting agenda. She indicated that the participants would proceed with editing the advice letter based on the comments received

. 

### Review of Comments Dr. Aust in noted that c omments on the advice letter had been received prior to the meeting from Dr. Keith Pezzoli, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and EPA Region 9

. Dr. Austin asked the other Board members who had comments but had not yet contributed to send them at this point to Ms. Ann

- Marie Gantner via email, including the line numbers to whichSeptember 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

the comments referred. The comments have not been incorporated into the draft to preserve the line numbers , but the relevant sections have been highlighted

. T he relevant sections to EPA Region 9’s comments have not been highlighted yet because they were received recently

. Dr. Austin recognized the editing team , Mr. Timothy Treviño and Mr. Luis E. Ramírez (not in attendance)

. The procedure for editing would be that Ms. Gantner would share a draft advice letter via Adobe Connect, which included the comments , and edit it in real time. Dr. Austin asked the participants to enter suggestions for alternative text using the “chat” function of Adobe Connect. For Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman, who was unable to access Adobe Connect, Dr. Austin arranged that she email her suggestions to Mr. Stephen Niemeyer , who would add them to the chat discussion for her. Ms. Allie Wechsler would copy suggested text from the chat discussion into the meeting notes. Dr. Austin reminded the GNEB members that the Board operates by consensus. Members can vote to agree with a change, disagree but not block a change or block a change. The edits that would be discussed at this meeting would be those that were substantive in nature rather than editorial. Dr. Austin stated that after the advice letter is finalized and edited by the editing team, final copyediting would be performed by the contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. The participant s began editing the advice letter from its end to preserve the original line numbering. **4. Ecological Restoration in Urban Areas**  A participant asked for clarification about the following passage (lines 3 63

– 365): Because of the complexity associated with hi gh levels of human activity in urban ecosystems, approaches vary from maintaining and enhancing native plant diversity, or specific rare and endangered plant or animal species, to restoring and enhancing habitats and cultural landscapes. Dr. Austin stated that the comments from EPA Region 9 regarding the above sentence were that “cultural landscape” should be defined in the advice letter and that in some ecological restoration cases, such as preventing erosion of denuded areas, native plants might not be th e best solution. Dr. Austin noted the Board’s decision to add a definition of cultural landscape and a discussion of the need to consider costs in erosion prevention. Dr. Austin indicated that there was a further comment , referring to the following sentenc e from lines 359 to 362: For example, the haphazard urbanization (i.e., building human settlement on steep, unstable slopes, without adequate infrastructure) like that taking place in the Tijuana canyon lands, causes severe erosion during rain storms, causing ecological devastation on both sides of the U

. S

. - Mexico Border. indicating that the advice letter should discuss the link between the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ) 1 and haphazard development. Mr. Niemeyer responded that causality

1 North American Free Trade Agreement. 1994. H.R. Doc. No. 103

– 159, vol. 1.4 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

might be difficult to prove. Instead, an argument could be made associating proximity to the United States with rapid development in the Mexico border region. Ms. Edna A. Mendoza concurred, citing differences in urban planning in Mexico and U.S. border communi ties. Mr. Jack Monger and Mr. Niemeyer were of the opinion that a possible connection between NAFTA and development was beyond the purview of the Board. Dr. Austin recognized the consensus not to include a reference to NAFTA in the advice letter. Dr. Aust in asked the Board members about adding material on inequalities in urban planning between Mexico and U.S. border communities. The participants discussed this option. Dr. Pezzoli asserted that i t i s already discussed sufficiently in the advice letter

. Mr. Timothy Treviño maintained that urban planning is primarily a local

- rather than a federal

- level issue . A participant argued that w atershed connectivity often requires a transbo rder approach to urban planning , as is the case in San Diego and Tijuana. A Board member noted that urban planning is relevant to EPA’s environmental justice activities. The Board members reached a consensus not to add additional text on urban planning. **3. Border Security and Impacts on Ecological Restoration**  Dr. Pohlman expressed a general comment that this section needs to balance the priorities of ecological restoration with the missions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies. She stated that it is important for the Board to be p erceived as practical and knowledgeable about issues rather than overl y idealistic. She suggested adding a statement at the beginning of the section that would read something like: “We recognize the vital mission of the Department of Homeland Security and need for protection against illegal immigration ...” Dr. Austin asked Dr. Pohlman to provide verbatim text to propose to the Board. The participants discussed revisions to the following sentence (lines 351

– 353): DHS also has begun to incorporate training and guidance related to environmental issues into its practices. Staff receive some training on environmental protection and tribal relations. Dr. Pohlman sent to Mr. Niemeyer relevant statistics, as well as alternative text to substitute for th e above paragr aph : DHS also has begun to incorporate training and guidance related to environmental issues into its practices. In addition, appropriate DHS personnel and Border Patrol officers receive training on environmental protection and tribal customs and relations , and they now incorporate environmental protection and tribal liaison in their daily routine. The border fence has helped deter the crossing of undocumented aliens through tribal land such as that of the Tohono O’odham Nation along the Arizona border with the Mexican state of Sonora, slowing the dumping of trash associated with illegal crossings. Ms. Jill Sherman

- Warne commented in the chat discussion that there is rapid turnover among Border Patrol officers. Mr. Mike Vizzier commended the DHS for its comm itment to the above training programs considering the Border Patrol’s high personnel turnover rates

. Ms. Mendoza stated that in general, it is important to include funding for resources as well as training. For example, the Tucson Border Patrol is trained in trash removal but has no funding for trash bags. She also requested that “training on environmental protection” be clarified in the report but indicated that the phrase was acceptable for the advice letter.September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

Dr. Austin questioned the existence of data on changes in trash dumping associated with illegal crossings as a result of U.S. border control s and objected to the term “undocumented aliens

. ” Dr. Pohlman cited data on the decrease in the number of undocumented immigrants as a result of U.S. border controls, but Dr. Austin replied that specific data on trash dumping was needed to include the statement in the advice letter

. Ms. Mendoza added that she would not agree to add the statement about trash dumping unless the Tohono O’odham Nation reviewed it. Mr. Niemeyer suggested deleting the last sentence of the suggested text for the advice letter and collecting data on trash dumping for th e report. The Board members supported substituting the new text with the final sentence deleted as follows: DHS also has be gun to incorporate training and guidance related to environmental issues into its practices. In addition, appropriate DHS personnel and Border Patrol officers receive training on environmental protection and tribal customs and relations, and they now incor porate environmental protection and tribal liaison in their daily routine. Mr. Joyce reminded Dr. Austin of a comment related to the project cited on lines 3 44 to 3 4 5:

... a project to stabilize fill slopes, offset loss of vegetation, and re

- establish habitat in Zone A

- 1, San Diego Sector. that had not been highlighted to discuss in this meeting. EPA Region 9 had suggested indicating that some of these efforts could be applied to other areas such as Tijuana, Mexico, and a mechanism to provide this training to Tijuana land

- use planners and environmental officials would be useful

. Dr. Austin asked Ms. Alhelí Baños

- Keener whether the comment is proposing adding a recommendation to provide training. Ms. Baños

- Keener answered that she would inquire as to whether the person who had made that comment wanted it to be included as a recommendation or a statement. Mr. Vizzier and Dr. Pezzoli agreed with including it as a recommendation, but were concerned that the recommendation might interfere with the operations of EPA Region 9 . If the comment is proposing a recommendation, Dr. Austin asked for verbatim text. She added a note in the advice letter that a recommendation might be added. Dr. Pohlman stressed the i mportance of DHS being recognized for its ecological restoration activities, which are not widely known. Dr. Pohlman proposed replac ing the text from lines 33 4 to 339: There have also been issues with scraping and erosion associated with border security ac tivities and operations. In addition, U.S. border tribes have also been affected by the construction and maintenance of the fence. As noted in the 13th GNEB report, foremost is the disruption of connectivity for species mo ving across th e border, and for water flow

. Tribes and DOI staff report the issues caused by Border Patrol activities, such as tire dragging to look for tracks of undocumented aliens and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion. with the following: Recognizing the positive im pacts and clarifying that illegal activity is the nexus for border impacts, it could also be noted that DHS is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment. However, there have been consequences to Border Patrol Activities. Tribes and DOI staff report the issues caused by Border Patrol activities, such as tire dragging to look for tracks of undocumented aliens and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion.6 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Ms. Mendoza reworded Dr. Pohlman’s suggested text as follows: Recognizing the positive impacts to facilitate trade and clarifying that illegal activity is the primary nexus for border impacts, it could also be noted that DHS is committed to responsible enviro nmental stewardship and ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment as per internal policy. However, tribes and DOI staff report the issues caused by Border Patrol activities, such as tire dragging to look for tracks of undocumented border crossers and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion. Dr. Austin noted that legal activities also have very large impacts on the border environment. The term “increased human activity” is not apt because the passage refers speci ficall y to Border Patrol activity

. Other participants also expressed concern about the term “primary nexus.” In addition, Mr. Thomas Hastings stated that the term that the White House uses is “undocumented immigrants.” The Board members agreed to use this term to replace “undocumented aliens” or other such references throughout the advice letter. Dr. Austin asked Dr. Greg Eckert to provide a citation for the DHS internal policy and Ms. Mendoza to revise the passage per the participants’ comments. Ms. Mendoza proposed the following, with Dr. Austin’s modification indicated b y a strikeout: Recognizing the positive impacts to facilitate trade and clarifying that increased border protection activities have impacts in the region, it could also be noted that DHS is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and that ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment as per internal policy. However, Border Patrol activities continue to have consequences. For example, tribes and DOI staff report dragging to look for tracks of undocumented immigrants and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion. Dr. Eckert emphasized the need to include a sentence referring to the legacy of impacts to resources from illegal crossings an d Border Patrol actions. Agencies and landowners that cope with this legacy

need support. Ms. Sherman

- Warne also suggested changing “tire dragging” to “tire dragging and use of off

- road vehicles.” Dr. Austin asked Ms. Mendoza to make the changes that were discussed. The revised text will replace the text on line s 334 to 339. **2. Water and Watershed Issues**  Dr. Austin indicated that most of the comments in this section were ones of clarification. Mr. Niemeyer, however, had suggested added the following paragra ph at the end of the section (i.e., after line 322): On a positive note, on September 16 the chairmen of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Water Development Board and the EPA Region 6 Administrator sent a joint letter on colonias to three Texas associations. Colonias are economically disadvantaged areas, often lacking water, wastewater, and other basic services. The letter to the Texas Association of Counties, the Texas Municipal League, and the Texas Association of Regional Counci ls asked for the members of those organizations to cooperate with state and federal agencies to provide services to colonia residents. If colonia residents receive wastewater service, ecological restoration follows. Ms. Sally Spener asked for clarification of the phrase “ecological restoration follows.” Mr. Niemeyer replied that he meant that the source of pollution must be stopped before beginning an ecological restoration. Dr. Pezzoli proposed the following revision to the sentence:September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

If colonia residents r eceive wastewater service, the prospect for successful ecological restoration increases dramatically. Mr. Niemeyer agreed to the change. Dr. Ivonne Santiago observed that the proximity of septic tanks to drinking water wells was a major problem in colonias

. Ms. Mendoza asked about the reference to seasonal pulse flow in the paragraph on Minute 319 (lines 285

–291). 2 Dr. Austin responded that the Board had agreed to delete the word “seasonal” (line 287). **1. Collaborative Efforts**  **Under the La Paz Agreement**  Dr. Austin stated that there were no substantive comments in this section

. **Ecological Restoration in This**  **Border Context** Dr. Austin stated that there were no substantive comments in this section (lines 160

–204) either. **The Border Context** Dr. Austin stated that there were no substantive comments in this section (lines 132

– 159). Dr. Santiago suggested that material on the political context of implementing sustainable measures should be included. Dr. Austin asked her to draft verbatim text to propose to the Bo ard to add to the general background section. Dr. Santiago suggested adding the following text after line 150: The contextual border reality (geographical, political, economical) requires the development of sustainable ecological restoration actions. Mr. N iemeyer asked for clarification of the phrase “contextual border reality .” Dr. Santiago answered that the phrase depicts the complexity of border issues, which are geographic, political and economic in origin. Sustainable measures are needed that can be im plemented regardless of changing future conditions. Mr. Niemeyer suggested the phrase “unique situation of the border.” Dr. Santiago did not agree that this phrasing captured the magnitude of the issue and the need for a holistic approach that many communi ties seek. In the chat discussion, Mr. Vizzier proposed the following alternative text : The complex geographic, politics, and economics of the border region requires the development of sustainable ecological restoration actions. There was consensus to use this text. Dr. Pezzoli advocated for including a reference to the Superfund Research Program, which is funded b y the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and is one of 16 national programs established by the federal government to manage problems associated with

2 Minute 319 of the Treaty on Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande , Feb ruary 3, 1944.8 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Superfund sites

. The University of California, San Diego, Dr. Pezzoli’s institution, is funded by the program to study ecological restoration in an urban area. After the final sentence that ends on line 126, Dr. Pezzoli p roposed adding the following sentence to refer to the program: The federal government is already supporting some of this work, on the U.S. side of the border, through innovative “ Community Engagement ” and “ Research Translation ” activities funded by the Nat ional Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Superfund Research Program. There were no objections to adding this sentence to the action letter as it provides an example of an activity

of a different federal agency from the others already inclu ded. Dr. Austin asked whether the reference to the President on line 97 should be retained given that the advice letter is addressed to the President. The Board members agreed to change “the President and the federal government” to “the federal government. ” **Recommendations** The Board’s recommendations are presented on lines 39 to 130. Dr. Austin indicated that EPA Region 9 had requested adding specific examples in this section. She questioned mentioning specific organizations such as Alter Terra on line 120. Dr. Pezzoli agreed, noting that the Tijuana River Valley

Recovery

Team (TRVRT) was comprised of many organizations, although Alter Terra was the principal nongovernmental organization. Ms. Mendoza, Dr. Jose Francisco Zamora

- Arroyo and Dr. Cy rus B. H. Reed agreed with including the TRVRT project in the advice letter without citing particular participating organizations and providing more details about the project in the report. A consensus was reached to include the TRVRT in the advice letter but delete the reference to Alter Terra. Dr. Austin stated that EPA Region 9 had asked the Board to provide specific examples of models of ecological planning and restoration in reference to the following recommendation on lines 9 3 to 95:

... the federal government should provide funding and support research to link existing models of ecological planning and restoration to ecosystems along the U.S.

- Mexico border. Dr. Santiago responded that the examples of linkages of models in Workgroup #4’s table were not developed for the United States. There was a consensus not to change the advice letter but to add these examples to the report and comment on whether they were appl icable to the border region

. Referring to the recommendation in lines 83 to 91 :

• The federal government should support the acquisition of the data necessary to measure the effectiveness of ecological restoration programs and activities. The data presently collected and analyzed to determine the efficacy of ecological restoration activities along the U.S.

- Mexico Border are extremely wide ranging, encompassing varying (among other things) habitats, geographies (including both U.S. and Mexican geographies), p eriods of record, purposes (historic ecological conditions, rapid ecological assessments, Viability Assessments, Performance, etc.), constituents, qualities, and scales. A comprehensive data collection program is paramount to the success of any ecological restoration activities along the U.S.

- Mexico Border.September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

Dr. Austin reported that EPA Region 9 asked the Board to specify the federal agencies to which it is referring and clarify

whether it was recommending supporting or funding. Mr. Dave Anderson was in favo r of retaining the broad term “support” and not citing particular agencies. The intent of the recommendation is to convey the importance of data collection rather than identify particular agencies for the task

. Participants in the chat discussion, however, noted that “support” was not a very precise verb. The Board members agreed to substitute the phrase “support development and fund implementation of” for “support.” In regard to the recommendation o n lines 76 to 80:

• The U.S. federal government should con duct and support research that would assist and inform ecological restoration of water bodies and associated habitat. There is an ongoing need for research regarding groundwater availability, invasive species control, and how the volume and timing of water releases from reservoirs can impact habitat. EPA Region 9 asked for clarification about the agencies that were to conduct and support research and the audience that was to be informed. Ms. Alison Krepp favored retaining “and inform” because her agency oft en is questioned about the way s in which its research is “making a difference.” A participant proposed rephrasing the recommendation to convey this more clearl y. Dr. Austin asked Ms. Krepp to rewrite the recommendation. Dr. Austin noted the suggestion from the Water Resources Department of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality , conveyed by Ms. Mendoza, to add the text in red to the sentence on lines 76 to 77, as indicated below:

• The U.S. federal government should conduct and support research that would assist and inform ecological restoration of water bodies and associated habitat within the framework of existing governing agreements and treaties. The Board agreed to this change. Dr. Austin asked the Board members to approve the following addition in red to the bulleted paragraph on lines 66 to 73:

• U.S. federal agencies, such as the USGS, Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and IBWC, as well as U.S. state and Mexican stakeholders and tribal partners, should participate in U.S. state environmental flow revie ws, as permitted by state law. Where no U.S. state environmental flow revie w or process is occurring, these federal agencies should convene basin

- wide analy ses of environmental flows that are developed with Mexican, state and tribal partners to help identify the quantity, timing and quality of flows and beneficiaries of these ecosystem services. These analyses should be shared with U.S. state environmental fl ow reviews when and if they occur. There was a consensus to make these additions. The Board members agreed to make the addition indicated in red to the text on lines 59 to 60:

• The U.S. federal natural resource agencies and the IBWC , in collaboration, sho uld develop metrics, standards, and models for environmental flows for use in water planning to

... Dr. Austin indicated that EPA Region 9 also had inquired whether developing the metrics referred to on line 60 and collecting the information cited in the sent ence on lines 62 to 65:10 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Needed information includes analysis of the range of flow characteristics, such as peak flow and mo nthly flow

variation, and base flows to support planning for allocations, wildlife habitat needs, recreation and treatment capacity. would require the installation and maintenance of flow meters. If so, the Board should specify the resources required. The Board agreed to provide more detail about resources needed for flow monitoring in the report rather than the advice letter. The parti cipants discussed the recommendation on lines 50 to 58 (Note: “[should?]” was in the quoted text) :

• In order to begin developing a restoration frame wo rk for the Colorado River Basin, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) can [should?] continue to prov ide institutional and technical support to the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study and other efforts to gain information for better management of border watersheds and water bodies. The solutions examined and adopted in such studies should i nclude those that promote healthy river flows in the Lower Colorado River Basin and DOI could disseminate results, including through other agencies such as the IBWC, of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study to stakeholders in other border watersheds. At Dr. Austin’s suggestion, the Board members agreed to delete “Lower” on line 55. Dr. Austin stated that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality recommended replacing “should” with “can” on line 51. Dr. Santiago preferred “should” but indicated that the first part of the sentence was more important to preserve. Mr. Treviño observed that the paragraph is not clear about whether it is recommending support for the institutions conducting the Colorado River Basin Study or the recommendation s that derive from the results of the study

. The participants could not identify

the author of the paragraph and were not sure of the intended meaning. Ms. Spener indicated that regarding support, the study was a partnership between the Department of the Interior’s (DO I) Bureau of Reclamation and local and state agencies. There were many implementation recommendations from the study, some of which might have been within the purview of the federal government and others might have been state or local initiati ves. Dr. Eckert volunteered to contact the Bureau of Reclamation for more details about the extent of federal support and initiatives related to the Colorado River Basin Study

. Ms. Spener supported a study similar to the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study for the Rio Grande Basin. She added that Commissioner Edward Drusina has advocated for such an effort. The resources for a Rio Grande Basin Study have not been available, however, and the investigation would need to incorporate data from th e Mexican part of the basin. Compared to the Colorado River, a much larger portion of the Rio Grande watershed lies in Mexico. Mr. Treviño concurred with mentioning the need for a Rio Grande Basin Study in the report. Dr. Reed noted that this recommendatio n was made implicitly in the paragraph on lines 66 to 73. Using the chat discussion, he suggested adding the following sentence at the end of that paragraph to clarify

the connection with the Colorado River Basin Study : Federal agencies should utilize lessons learned from the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study when conducting these analyses. Dr. Austin asked the participants whether they would like to add a separate recommendation for a Rio Grande Basin Study to the advice letter

. Dr. Re ed expressed concern about crafting theSeptember 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

recommendation because it would involve multiple agencies in the United States and Mexico. Mr. Treviño supported a separate recommendation. Mr. Niemeyer preferred to discuss a Rio Grande Basin Study in the report. EPA Region 9 commented on the following bulleted paragraph (lines 46

–49):

• There is a framework currently in place to develop performance indicators along the U.S.

- Mexico Border as part of the EPA Border 2020 Program. These performance indicators should b e expanded to include ecological restoration to ensure that the ecological systems along the border remain viable. They asked for clarification on the way in which ecological restoration would be translated to an indicator that would be measurable. There m ight be differences in perspective on what would be considered to be restored. Dr. Eckert and Mr. Anderson suggested that the intent was to recommend that Border 2020 work with partners to develop indicators, as well as to state that indicators would be us eful. The recommendation might need rephrasing. Dr. Reed suggested clarifying that federal agencies would collaborate with stakeholders and Mexico to develop performance indicators. He argued that Border 20 20 was focused on gray issues rather than ecologic al restoration. Dr. Austin asked Dr. Reed, Mr. Anderson and Dr. Eckert to clarify the paragraph. Referring to lines 43 to 45:

• The BECC

-NADB should take into consideration ecological impacts and benefits of new environmental infrastructure projects and es tablish protocols to do so by January 2014. EPA Region 9 asked for examples and observed that the Border Environment Cooperation Commission ( BECC ) already would attest to considering ecological restoration in its projects. Ms. Mendoza responded that the BE CC does not do so for all of its projects (e.g., infrastructure projects). Mr. Niemeyer observed that an y project receiving EPA funding must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3 regulations by conducting an environmental assessment and be i ng issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) before proceeding

. Dr. Austin expressed doubt that the official process alway s was followed

. Ms. Spener stated that projects certified b y the BECC must meet certain environmental criteria. D r. Reed offered to revise the sentence for accuracy and submit it to Ms. Maria Elena Giner and Mr. Juan Antonio Flores of the BECC for review. He offered the following draft text: The BECC

-NADB should develop best practices to better to take into consideratio n ecological impacts and benefits of new environmental infrastructure projects and look at ways to utilize environmental infrastructure to enhance ecological restoration. The BECC

- NADB should establish protocols to do so by January 2014. Ms. Spener noted that a January 2014 deadline might not be possible, however, given the meeting schedule of the BECC Board of Directors. “January 2014” will be changed to “2014.” Dr. Austin stated that feedback will be needed from the BECC and the North American Development Bank (NADB).

3 National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.12 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Dr. Austin drew the participants’ attention to two new recommendations . One was about applying the lessons learned by the DHS on stabilizing slopes and offsetting loss of vegetation to other areas and developing a mechanism to provide trainin g to Tijuana officials. Dr. Pezzoli supported the recommendation for the advice letter in principle but requested additional background about it. Ms. Mendoza supported it but wanted to make it more general to appl y throughout the border region. Deferring the recommendation to the report would be acceptable. T he other new recommendation referred to the need for training and resources for the Border Patrol. For the second recommendation, Mr. Vizzier proposed advocating that “environmental protection and training as a component of ecological restoration [ continue ] to be emphasized and continually

improved in recognition of the negative effects of border security on environmental protect[ion] and ecological restoration.” The re commendation would refer to the “continuing growth of [the Border Patrol] and changing conditions along the border [that] make training [on] environmental protection an ongoing challenge.” Dr. Austin noted that this recommendation should be reviewed b y Dr. Pohlman, who was no longer in attendance. Dr. Pezzoli and Ms. Mendoza registered their support for the new recommendations. 

### Discussion **and Revisions of**  **the GNEB Advice Letter**  Dr. Austin stated that a quorum had not been achieved at this meeting; therefore , it was not possible to vote on approval of the revised advice letter , including the two new recommendations

. Mr. Joyce suggested that the revisions discussed for this letter be made and that the revised letter be voted on at the next scheduled meeting of the GNEB on October 1, 2013. Dr. Austin expressed doubt that the revisions could be completed by October 1. Dr. Pezzoli also was concerned about achieving a quorum on October 1, noting that he would not be able to attend but would be willing to vote b y proxy to approve the revised letter given that it is close to being finalized. Mr. Joyce clarified that Board members cannot vote by proxy . Official GNEB business must be accomplished in a public meeting with a q uorum of Board members present. The Board then decided to cancel the October 1, 2013, public meeting. Dr. Austin offered to add the revised text to the draft advice letter. The participants confirmed that there was no additional text from the chat discussion that had not been copied into Ms. Wechsler’ s notes. Dr. Austin asked Mr. Treviño to coordinate with the editors to discuss the changes. Ms. Gantner proposed that the editors meet via teleconference on October 1, 2013. Mr. Joyce suggest ed that a new Board meeting be scheduled for early November 2013 to vote on approval of the advice letter. By September 27, 2013, Ms. Ganter will distribute a Doodle poll to the Board members to select a date during the week of November 4 or 11 for the next Board meeting. 

### Public Comments There were no oral public comments provided at this meeting, and there were no written public comments received b y the DFO prior to this meeting.September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13



### Adjournment Dr. Pezzoli thanked Dr. Austin for her leadership in chairing the meeting. Dr. Austin responded by expressing her gratitude to the writers and the meeting participants. She stated that she had noted the points that had been suggested for inclusion in the report. In addition to approval of the advice letter, the organization of the report will be an agenda item for the November 2013 Board meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 3: 59 p.m.14 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary



### Action Items  Dr. Austin will make the revisions approved at this meeting to the draft advice letter.  Dr. Eckert will provide a citation for the DHS internal policy on responsible environmental stewardship.  Ms. Krepp will rewrite the recommendation on lines 76 to 80.  Dr. Eckert will contact the Bureau of Reclamation for more details about the extent of federal support and initiatives related to the Col orado River Basin Study

.  Dr. Reed, Mr. Anderson and Dr. Eckert will clarify the paragraph on lines 46 to 49.  Dr. Reed will revise the recommendation on lines 43 to 45 and submit it to Ms. Giner and Mr. Flores of the BECC for review.  Mr. Treviño will coordi nate with the editors to finalize the advice letter.  An editors’ meeting will take place via teleconference on October 1, 2013.  By September 27, 2013, Ms. Ganter will distribute a Doodle poll to the Board members to select a date during the week of November 4 or 11 for the next GNEB meeting.September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15 

### Good Neighbor Environmental **Board (GNEB )** 

**Meeting Participants Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal**  **Members Diane Austin, Ph.D. (Chair)**  Associate Research Anthropologist Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University

of Arizona Tucson, AZ **Dave Anderson, P.E., D.WRE, CFM, CPESC**  Client Service Manager CDM Smith, Inc. Austin, TX **Edna A. Mendoza**  Director Office of Border Environmental Protection Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Phoeniz , AZ **Jamie Michael**  Department Manager Health and Human Services Dona Ana Count y Las Cruces , NM **Jack Monger**  Executive Director Industrial Environmental Association San Diego , CA **Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D.**  Director of Field Research, Continuing Lecturer Superfund Research Center, Community Engagement Urban Studies and Planning Program University

of California, San Diego La Jolla , CA **Cyrus B. H. Reed, Ph.D.**  Conservation Director Sierra Club , Lo ne Star Chapter Austin , TX **Carlos Rubinstein**  Commissioner Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin , TX **Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.** Lecturer Department of Civil Engineering The Universit y of Texas at El Paso El Paso, TX **Jill Sherman**  **- Warne**  Exectutive Director Native American Environmental Protection Coalition San Deigo , CA **Timothy Treviño** Senior Director of Strategic Planning & Agency Communications Alamo Area Council of Governments San Antonio, TX **Mike Vizzier** Chief Hazardous Materials Division Department of Environmental Health San Diego Count y San Diego, CA **Erin Ward**  Director U.S.

- Mexico Border Projects New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute Las Cruces , NM16 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

**Jose Francisco Zamora -**  **Arroyo, Ph.D.** Director Colorado River Delta Program Sonoran Institute Tucson, AZ
**Federal Members Department of Homeland Security**  **Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED, AP** Director Sustainability

and Environmental Programs Chief Readiness Support Officer Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. **Department of the Interior Greg Eckert, Ph.D.**  Restoration Ecologist National Park Service Department of Interior Fort Collins, CO **International Boundary and Water**  **Commission Edward Drusina**  Commissioner U.S. Section International Boundary

and Water Commission El Paso, TX **Designated Federal Officer Mark Joyce**  Acting Designated Federal Officer Good Neighbor Environmental Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. **Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal Alternates**  **Texas Commission on Environmental Quality**  **Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.** Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator Intergovernmental Relations Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX
**Federal Alternates Department of Commerce** 

**— NOAA**  **Alison Krepp** NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce Silver Spring, MD **Department of State Thomas Hastings**  Department of State Washington, D.C. **International Boundary and Water Commission**  **Sally Spener** Foreign Affairs Officer U.S. Section International Boundary

and Water Commission El Paso, TX **EPA Regional Office Contact s**  **Region 9 Alhelí Baños**  **- Keener**  U.S.

- Mexico Border Specialist U.S. EPA, Region 9 San Diego, CASeptember 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

**EPA Participants Denise Benjamin**  **- Sirmons**  Director Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. **Ann -**  **Marie Gantner** Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. **Cynthia Jones -**  **Jackson** Associate Director Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. **Stephanie McCoy** Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. **Other Participants Allie Wechsler**  University

of Arizona Tucson, AZ **Bertha Venegas** National Resources Conservation Service Department of Agriculture Temple, TX **Contractor Support Jennifer G. Lee, Ph.D.**  Science Writer/Editor The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD18 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 

### Good Neighbor Environmental Board

**Agenda Tuesday, September 24, 2013**  **12:00**

**– 4:00 p.m. EDT**  **Call -**  **In: 1 -**  **866 -**  **299 -**  **3188; Conference Code: 202 -**  **233 -**  **0068#** 12:00 p.m. **Welcome and Introductions**

 Mark Joyce **,** Associate Director GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

 Cynthia Jones

- Jackson, Associate Director U.S. EPA Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Denise Benjamin

- Sirmons, Director U.S. EPA Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Diane Austin, Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board

 Board Memb ers 12:20 p.m. **Overview of the**  **Agenda**

 Diane Austin, Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board 12:30 p.m. **Review of Comments** 1:00 p.m. **Discussion and Revision of the**  **Advice Letter** 3:00 p.m. **Discussion of the**  **GNEB Report**

 Next Steps 3:50 p.m . **Public Comments** 4:00 p.m. **Adjournment**September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor E nvironmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 19 These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed during this meeting.

11/25/2013 Diane Austin Date Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board w as created b y the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1992. The board is responsible for providing advice to the President and Congress on environmental and infrastructure issues and needs within the states contiguous to Mexico. The findings and recommendations of the Board do not represent the views of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved or disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.20 September 24, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

From: Austin, Diane E

- (daustin) [daustin@email.arizona.edu] Sent: Monday , November 25, 2013 1:33 AM To: Gantner, Ann

- Marie Subject: Approval of GNEB September meeting summary Attachments: GNEB_Sep_24_2013_Meeting_Summary _final DA.docx
Ann Marie,
Attached please find the final meeting summary for the September 2013 meeting of the GNEB. I made one minor change on p. 12 to clarify the subject of the sentence.
With that change, I approve the summery

.
Thanks! Diane