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 Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.

Call-In: 1-866-299-3188; Conference Code: 202-233-0068#

Adobe Connect: https://epa.connectsolutions.com/gnebmeetingroom/

FINAL MEETING SUMMARY

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 (ODACMO); 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-only participants.

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, only 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 the participants that the meeting was open to the public. 

Members of the press had indicated that they would attend.

Ms. Cynthia 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 outstanding
2 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. JonesJackson 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 diversity 

of backgrounds—internal and external to EPA—to provide advice 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 vital for operating in a time of fiscal restraint and likely 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 in 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 

year, but she recognized that this might not be achievable. She thanked the Board members for 

their willingness to conduct the business of the Board virtually 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) attempted 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 only 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. Austin noted that comments 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 which 
September 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. The 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 participants 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 363–365):

Because of the complexity associated with high 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 the 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 sentence 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 communities. 

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. Austin 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 it is 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 watershed connectivity often requires a transborder 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 perceived as practical 

and knowledgeable about issues rather than overly 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 

the above paragraph:

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 commitment 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 controls 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 the report. The Board members supported substituting the 

new text with the final sentence deleted as follows:

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.

Mr. Joyce reminded Dr. Austin of a comment related to the project cited on lines 344 to 345:

...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 importance of DHS being recognized for its ecological restoration 

activities, which are not widely known. Dr. Pohlman proposed replacing the text from lines 334

to 339:

There have also been issues with scraping and erosion associated with border security activities 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 

moving across the 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 impacts 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 environmental 

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 specifically 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 by 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 and 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 lines 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 paragraph 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 Councils 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 receive 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 Board 

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. Niemeyer 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 implemented 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 communities 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 by 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, 

February 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 proposed 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 

National 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 included.

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. Cyrus 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 93

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 applicable 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), periods 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 favor 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 on lines 76 to 80:

• The U.S. federal government should conduct 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 often is questioned about the ways in which its research is “making 

a difference.” A participant proposed rephrasing the recommendation to convey this more 

clearly. 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 reviews, as permitted by state law. Where no U.S. state 

environmental flow review or process is occurring, these federal agencies should convene basin-wide 

analyses 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 flow 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, should 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 sentence 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 

monthly 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 participants discussed the recommendation on lines 50 to 58 (Note: “[should?]” was in the 

quoted text):

• In order to begin developing a restoration framework for the Colorado River Basin, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) can [should?] continue to provide 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 include 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 recommendations 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 (DOI) 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 initiatives. 

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 the 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 recommendation 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. Reed expressed concern about crafting the 
September 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 be 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 might 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 useful. 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 2020 was focused on gray issues rather than 

ecological 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 establish 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 BECC does not do so for all of its projects (e.g., infrastructure 

projects). Mr. Niemeyer observed that any project receiving EPA funding must comply with 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)3regulations by conducting an environmental 

assessment and being issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) before proceeding.

Dr. Austin expressed doubt that the official process always was followed. Ms. Spener stated that 

projects certified by the BECC must meet certain environmental criteria. Dr. 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 consideration 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 training 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 apply 

throughout the border region. Deferring the recommendation to the report would be acceptable.

The 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 recommendation 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 by 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 by 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 quorum 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 suggested 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 by 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 Colorado 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 coordinate 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 County

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, Lone Star Chapter

Austin, TX

Carlos Rubinstein

Commissioner

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX

Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.

Lecturer

Department of Civil Engineering

The University 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 County

San Diego, CA

Erin Ward

Director

U.S.-Mexico Border Projects

New Mexico Water Resources Research 

Institute

Las Cruces, NM
16 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 Contacts

Region 9

Alhelí Baños-Keener

U.S.-Mexico Border Specialist

U.S. EPA, Region 9

San Diego, CA
September 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, MD
18 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 Members 

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 Environmental 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 was created by 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