August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

August 6, 2013

12:00 – 4:00 p.m.

EPA East Building

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.

Call-In: (866) 299-3199; Conference Code: 2022330068#

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); Ann-Marie Gantner, ODACMO

Dr. Diane Austin thanked the GNEB members for their efforts and for participating in the 

meeting. Mr. Mark Joyce also expressed his gratitude to the Board members for their service. He 

reminded them that significant work remains to be done to complete the advice letter by the end 

of the calendar year. Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson welcomed the GNEB members as well. She

expressed EPA’s appreciation for their efforts and recognized that the Board is eager to complete 

the advice letter in a timely manner.

Ms. Jones-Jackson informed the Board members of recent organizational changes affecting the 

office formerly named OFACMO. She is assisting in briefing the new management of the office, 

which now is titled the Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

(ODACMO), about GNEB’s role and activities. Ms. Jones-Jackson assured the GNEB members 

that the activities of the Board will continue to be highly valued by EPA under the new 

organizational plan.

Ms. Jones-Jackson took the opportunity to recognize the efforts of Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner, who 

directs the logistical arrangements for the GNEB meetings. Ms. Gantner then conducted the roll 

call.
2 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Dr. Austin asked Ms. Jones-Jackson for more details about the new organizational structure. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson responded that OFACMO merged with another EPA office on July 28, 2013, 

to form ODACMO. There will be two arms of the new office: one will be charged with 

encouraging EPA staff across the Agency to engage in activities that promote diversity and 

inclusion, and the other will be responsible for the activities that previously were under the 

jurisdiction of OFACMO, for which Ms. Jones-Jackson served as Acting Director. Denise

Benjamin-Sirmons, formerly Director for Diversity, Advisory Committee Management, and 

Outreach in the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), is now the

Director of ODACMO. Ms. Jones-Jackson noted that ODACMO will have a larger staff, but it is 

unclear, however, what effect the reorganization will have on the resources that will be available 

to support face-to-face meetings for the GNEB.

Overview of the Agenda

Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB

Dr. Austin thanked EPA for supporting the GNEB and providing minutes for the Board 

meetings, as well as the contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. (SCG), for their 

assistance with the minutes. She reviewed the “notes” and “chat” features of Adobe® Connect, 

reminding participants to raise their virtual hands for recognition by the Chair. She stated that 

during the meeting discussion, Ms. Allie Wechsler, a University of Arizona staff member, will 

be typing in notes during the meeting and that these will be available to the GNEB members, 

along with the minutes prepared by SCG and the chat transcript.

Dr. Austin reviewed the agenda for the meeting. She then asked the Workgroup chairs to present 

a 10- to 15-minute summary of their Workgroup’s progress. Dr. Austin indicated that following 

these presentations, participants would have the opportunity to ask questions of the chairs.

Overview of Workgroup Progress

Workgroup #1: Define Ecological Restoration and Why It Is Important

Greg Eckert, Workgroup Chair

Dr. Austin introduced Dr. Greg Eckert, leader of the Workgroup charged with developing a 

definition for ecological restoration. Dr. Eckert reported that the Workgroup members had met 

several times via teleconference.

The group based its discussions on the definition of ecological restoration that is used by the 

Society for Ecological Restoration (SER): “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem 

that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.” The Workgroup’s goal was to develop a 

definition that would be inclusive, recognizing that there are multiple criteria and standards for 

ecological restoration. Dr. Eckert observed that the SER definition emphasizes active 

management and focuses on natural resources that have been damaged or destroyed. By using 

the broad term “ecosystem,” it includes non-wilderness areas such as agricultural lands and the 

urban environment.
August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

The Workgroup explored how the nature of an ecological restoration effort is shaped by values 

that are personal—and therefore subjective—and collective, including valuation of ecological 

services and cultural traditions. The range of values was depicted by the Workgroup in a 

diagram. Dr. Eckert explained that there is a continuum of practice for ecological restoration that 

arises from the continuum of values. He suggested that the Board discuss crafting a definition 

that addresses this continuum of values. 

The Workgroup tabulated potential reasons for conducting an ecological restoration, as well as

associated restoration activities to address these initiating factors. Examples of reasons for 

ecological restoration projects include legacy land uses that damaged natural resources, 

channelized waterways and established invasive species. Sample responses are removing the 

source of toxic chemical inputs (i.e., stopping the “stabbing”), restoring sinuousity, removing 

exotic species, reducing nutrient levels, road removal, removal of livestock and/or excess native 

herbivores, and thinning forests in which fire exclusion has been practiced. Dr. Eckert noted that 

monetary resources for ecological restoration are finite, however, necessitating an approach that 

sets an ecosystem on a trajectory for recovery rather than restoring every species. He provided 

the example of changing a site’s soil or geomorphology to attract beneficial species.

Dr. Eckert stated that the SER emphasizes that ecological restoration efforts should be selfsustaining. Because of global climate change, it would not be appropriate to focus on restoring 

climate change-vulnerable species. Flood and fire regimes also likely will evolve due to climate 

change.

The Workgroup is endeavoring to characterize the reasons that ecological restoration is 

particularly relevant to the Border region. The Border region includes extensive protected areas 

that provide ecological services and have high levels of ecological integrity. There also are areas 

managed for ecological services such as forestry. In addition, growing urban areas, which rely on 

ecological services, are included in the Border region. Dr. Keith Pezzoli (not in attendance) 

emphasized that the ongoing economic recovery and population growth on the Mexican side of 

the Border increasingly will depend on ecological services such as water. To characterize the 

relevance of ecological restoration to the Border region, Dr. Eckert suggested as a discussion 

point that ecological restoration is important to the Border area because the integrity of natural 

resources—and therefore repair of damaged resources—supports the dominant values and 

activities of the Border zone.

Workgroup #2: Review of Border-Specific Programs and Where Ecological Restoration 

Resonates, Is Incorporated, Etc.

Cyrus Reed, Workgroup Chair

Dr. Austin introduced Dr. Cyrus Reed, leader of the Workgroup charged with reviewing the 

ways in which ecological restoration resonates with and is incorporated in Border-specific 

programs. Dr. Reed reported that the Workgroup members had met only once, and as a result, the 

group’s work is not finished. For example, the Workgroup plans to review EPA’s Border 2020 

program in greater depth.

Dr. Reed indicated that the Workgroup had reviewed Border-specific efforts by EPA and other 

federal agencies, as well as larger federal landscape efforts, to determine whether they addressed 
4 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

ecological restoration issues. The Workgroup members concluded that although many programs 

included ecological restoration, it generally is not a primary focus of these efforts. In addition, 

state, local and federal agency cooperative efforts usually do not extend beyond the U.S.-Mexico 

Border. Dr. Reed suggested that GNEB investigate strategies to engage Mexico.

Dr. Reed noted that among federal agencies, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is a leading

agency in ecological restoration. The DOI’s efforts focus on large landscape restoration projects 

such as the America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) Initiative and the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) Rapid Ecological Assessments. The BLM’s ecological assessments include three areas 

within the Border region: the Sonoran Desert, Madrean Archipelago and Chihuahuan Desert.

Dr. Reed observed that there is overlap between the programs that Workgroup #2 identified and 

the projects highlighted by Workgroup #3, indicating that there are opportunities for 

collaboration between the two Workgroups. Because the missions of the federal agencies that 

undertake ecological restoration projects are highly variable, Dr. Reed also suggested the need 

for his Workgroup to confer with Workgroup #1. For example, ecological restoration might be 

part of a State Department program that is focused on security.

Workgroup #3: Review of Ecological Restoration Efforts With Federal Involvement 

Stephen Niemeyer, Workgroup Chair

Dr. Austin introduced Mr. Stephen Niemeyer, leader of the Workgroup reviewing ecological 

restoration efforts with federal involvement. Mr. Niemeyer stated that his Workgroup had 

compiled an extensive list of ecological restoration projects in the Border region, expanding the 

scope of the compilation beyond those that had federal involvement. He indicated that the 

rationale behind the expanded scope was that most ecological restoration efforts are so large that 

they require collaboration among multiple entities.

Mr. Niemeyer observed that there is a wide range of projects in the Workgroup’s compilation, 

which makes it difficult to summarize the results. The projects’ geographic locations span the 

entire Border region, extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Although the list 

already is extensive, Mr. Niemeyer asked the Board members to review it for omitted projects 

that should be included. In particular, Dr. Eckert had pointed out that it would be valuable to 

consider Brownfields restorations.

Workgroup #4: Review of Data/Tools/Performance Indicators/Models

Dave Anderson, Workgroup Chair

Dr. Austin introduced Mr. Dave Anderson, leader of the Workgroup that is charged with 

researching data, tools, performance indicators and models for ecological restoration.

Mr. Anderson reported that the Workgroup had met twice via teleconference and thanked the 

members of the Workgroup for their participation.

Mr. Anderson noted that the Workgroup’s charge covers a broad range of topics. The Workgroup 

decided to focus its efforts by listing types of data, tools, performance indicators and models 

used for ecological restoration; providing examples of the models or tools; and presenting 

examples of their use by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), federal agencies and other 
August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

entities. By compiling and organizing this list, the Workgroup had sought to determine trends 

that would suggest policy recommendations that the GNEB might offer.

The Workgroup determined that the data collected to support ecological restoration were highly 

variable, including data that differ geographically and temporally, as well as by habitat 

(e.g., terrestrial, aquatic), collection purpose, scale and quality. The Workgroup identified 

repositories for data collected in Texas, but needs to expand its analysis to include other states in 

the Border region. In regard to data, Mr. Anderson described potential advice letter 

recommendations for allocating resources, developing shared data clearinghouses, performing 

data gap analyses, reviewing data quality, and ensuring a bi-national approach to developing and 

sharing data.

Mr. Anderson described the table of tools and models used in ecological restoration that was 

assembled by Workgroup member Dr. Ivonne Santiago. Dr. Santiago identified tools and models

that are diverse in methodology and purpose. Mr. Anderson mentioned potential advice letter 

recommendations pertaining to tools and models: conducting long-term studies to better 

understand the enduring trends that are important to ecological restoration; incorporating the 

human element; and closing the gap between theory and application, for example, addressing 

conceptual academic models for which no correlated tools exist.

Performance metrics can be used to define ecological baseline conditions, determine efficacy of 

and analyze trends in ecological restoration programs, evaluate ambient conditions, and measure 

interaction between ecological and human systems. Mr. Anderson stated that the Workgroup had 

developed a list of metrics but would like more examples from other GNEB members. The 

Workgroup drafted some potential advice letter recommendations: leverage the EPA Border 

2020 program’s framework to develop performance indicators for ecological restoration; develop 

performance metrics that apply for a broad range of purposes; and ensure that performance 

metrics are compatible with available tools and models.

Mr. Anderson welcomed input from the GNEB members about additional data inventories, tools, 

performance metrics and models that should be included in the draft advice letter.

General Question and Answer Session About Workgroup Progress

Dr. Austin, Workgroup Chairs, GNEB Members

Dr. Austin thanked the members of the Workgroups for their contributions, appreciating the 

variety of sources that they consulted and issues that they raised. She opened the floor for 

questions and comments related to the progress of the Workgroups.

Workgroup #1

The Board members discussed changes to the definition of ecological restoration. Mr. Kevin 

Bixby suggested adding the loss of a species to the definition. He agreed with the concept of 

natural forces being allowed to complete the restoration of ecosystems but was concerned that 

this might lead to inaction. The Board members agreed that the goals of an ecological restoration 

should not be defined by historical conditions.
6 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

The GNEB members debated the regulatory framework that supports ecological restoration as it 

applies to the definition. It was pointed out that ecological restoration lacks a specific legal 

mandate. The Endangered Species Act1often is used as the legal basis for ecological restoration 

projects, and as a result, these projects are designed to protect the welfare of particular at-risk 

species. Unfortunately, the species-by-species approach that this methodology engenders can 

limit restoration efforts. A landscape approach such as that taken in DOI’s recent efforts, as well 

as projects sponsored by NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, represents an alternative. 

Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman suggested that establishing a regulatory framework for ecological 

restoration be included as one of GNEB’s recommendation.

Workgroup #2

The lack of focus on ecological restoration in programs sponsored by federal agencies was 

discussed. Mr. Bixby suggested possible reasons for the dearth of federal programs that focus on 

ecological restoration: lack of authority, lack of awareness and ecological restoration not falling 

under the purview of the agency’s mission. Mr. Niemeyer stated that the decision to exclude DOI

from participation in Border 2020 was made at the federal level; some of DOI’s current 

programs, however, are related to the mission of Border 2020. He suggested that the Board could 

recommend that DOI become involved in Border 2020. Mr. Jock Whittlesey commented that the 

legal basis for Border 2012 (the predecessor to Border 2020), which was the 1983 Agreement on 

Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (the La 

Paz Agreement), focused on remediation; therefore, Border 2012 (and the successor Border 

2020) probably was not considered relevant to DOI’s mission. Related to EPA’s future role in 

ecological restoration, Mr. Whittlesey proposed that the GNEB suggest that ecological 

restoration be added to the goals in EPA’s mission statement. He argued that this change would 

not impose an additional financial burden on the Agency but only would alter the way in which 

existing activities were categorized.

The GNEB members discussed the scope of the Workgroup’s compilation of border-specific 

programs. In regard to specific projects to add, Dr. Austin reported that Dr. Pezzoli had asked the 

Workgroup to include the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI) in its 

compilation. Mr. Bixby asked about the relevance of nonfederal efforts such as the Sky Island 

Alliance. Dr. Reed responded that the funding sources of projects often were difficult to 

determine, but in general, ecological restoration projects require the engagement of a range of 

stakeholders, including a federal component. He added that even in cases in which there is no 

direct federal involvement, programs initiated by NGOs might serve as models for federal 

efforts. Mr. Joyce recognized that noteworthy state, local and private efforts exist; because of the 

GNEB’s charter, however, a necessary criterion for inclusion of examples should be the 

existence of a federal connection. Dr. Austin reminded the Workgroups that the examples 

selected should support the arguments that will be presented in the advice letter.

 

1 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1531.
August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

Workgroup #3

The GNEB members discussed the Workgroup’s list of ecological restoration projects. 

Dr. Eckert indicated that two examples of ecological restoration that might be added are the 

Coronado National Forest restoration and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s financial 

assistance program to plant native species and remove invasive plants on private lands. Dr. Reed 

proposed adding the ecological restoration efforts on the Upper Rio Grande. Commissioner

Edward Drusina lauded the Workgroup for successfully capturing projects that have had a 

significant impact. He suggested, however, that it would be beneficial to provide a more 

complete picture of restoration efforts in the Border region by including more small projects that 

have adopted innovative approaches. Dr. Austin suggested the need for more projects describing 

the restoration of agricultural areas.

Workgroup #4

The Board members discussed the inclusion of metrics in ecological restoration projects. Several 

participants suggested that the GNEB recommend that Border 2020 and the U.S.-México Border 

Health Commission (BHC) consider the use of ecological restoration metrics as a criterion in 

future requests for proposals (RFPs). There was concern among some of the Board members, 

however, about the impacts of requiring the use of metrics in small-scale ecological restoration 

projects. Ms. Edna Mendoza noted that in Border 2020, many of the key partners are state and 

local governments that might not have the resources to perform the necessary measurements. 

Dr. Austin added that in general, Border 2020 funds small-scale projects with a maximum budget 

of $100,000. Ms. Alhelí Baños-Keener clarified that although Border 2020 projects receive some 

funding from EPA, they primarily are state- and local-run projects that originate from input by

local communities and governments. The Board recognized that the use of ecological restoration 

metrics might apply best to large-scale, broad projects.

In regard to gaps in the information that the Workgroup collected, Dr. Santiago noted that many

tools are not linked to models, and the geographic scope of many tools and models does not span 

the Border. Mr. Anderson asked for assistance from the GNEB members in identifying examples 

of projects in which tools, models or metrics have been used.

Discussion of Advice Letter Priorities and Workgroup Reorganization

Advice Letter Priorities

Dr. Austin identified five general issues for the GNEB members to consider in drafting the 

advice letter: (1) describing the legal framework for ecological restoration; (2) deciding on the 

level of information to provide and other issues related to lists and tables; (3) determining criteria 

for case selection; (4) identifying which information to include in the advice letter versus the 

16th Report; and (5) developing recommendations for the advice letter.

The legal framework for ecological restoration was the first topic of discussion. Mr. Niemeyer 

stressed the importance of issues raised by the Border Fence. He stated that the Border Fence 

made it more difficult for ecological restoration projects to address transboundary problems such 
8 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

as ocelot habitat protection and allocation of water rights. Dr. Pohlman responded that the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had invested significantly in projects to restore 

habitats in the Border region. Although exempt from the requirement, DHS performs

assessments similar to those mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).2

She agreed that there have been missteps in the past, but stated that DHS has become proactive 

about environmental issues. For example, the Department provides Border Patrol Officers with 

extensive training on interacting with indigenous populations and wildlife and educates them 

about the Endangered Species Act. DHS also installed panels in the Border Fence to allow 

passage for ocelots. Commissioner Drusina expressed appreciation for the efforts made by DHS 

to communicate about and address the problems that were created initially by DHS activities in 

the Border region. He recommended including an account of these initial difficulties and 

corrective measures in the GNEB’s advice letter, as well as a description of the ecological 

restoration projects that have been conducted by DHS. Dr. Austin proposed including in the 

GNEB’s advice letter a discussion of the legal framework that prompts ecological restoration 

projects, gaps in the legal framework, legal issues that are specific to ecological restoration in the 

Border region (e.g., waivers of NEPA assessment requirements) and the approaches taken by 

federal agencies that are specific to Border region ecological restoration activities 

(e.g., conducting assessments similar to those required by NEPA). The GNEB members will 

need to decide whether to add the legal analysis to the charge of an existing Workgroup or create 

a new group to address it.

Dr. Austin also asked the GNEB members to consider the effective presentation and level of 

detail for the case studies and examples that will be included in the advice letter. The review of

project and program descriptions by the Board members, who collectively have broad expertise, 

will help ensure that descriptions are precise and accurate. Mr. Whittlesey favored limiting the 

number of examples that are included in the main body of the advice letter and including 

additional examples in appendices as necessary. Dr. Eckert and Dr. Austin proposed subdividing 

listed examples by category (e.g., ecological restoration projects located in federally protected 

areas vs. those on privately owned lands, coarse- vs. fine-scale metrics; restoration of “natural” 

areas/agricultural lands/urban areas). Dr. Santiago noted that she categorized the models and 

tools in the compilation that she developed for Workgroup #4.

The Board members discussed the selection criteria for the case studies and examples in the 

advice letter. Dr. Austin suggested that examples included in the lists be policy-specific. In 

addition, she noted that the Workgroups have compiled case studies of successful ecological 

restoration programs and projects. She suggested that it would be instructive to include examples 

in which ecological restoration efforts went awry. U.S.-Mexico collaborations might be another 

category. Dr. Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo cited Minute 319,

3 which establishes cooperative 

measures to address flow in the Colorado River Basin, as an example of collaboration to include

in the letter. Dr. Austin urged the Board to present a balanced and nuanced discussion of 

controversial topics such as the Border Fence and transboundary allocation of water rights.

 

2 National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.

3 Minute 319 of the Treaty on Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Feb. 

3, 1944.
August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

Dr. Austin charged the GNEB members with considering the content of the advice letter versus 

that of the report. The Board needs to determine which topics are pressing and should be 

discussed in the letter and which issues require more investigation by the Board before it is 

prepared to offer its recommendations. Mr. Whittlesey suggested that in revising the draft advice 

letter, the Board should focus on refining its recommendations rather than gathering more data. 

Dr. Santiago agreed that the Board has gathered sufficient data to substantiate the 

recommendations that it will offer in the final advice letter. Dr. Austin advocated supporting 

each recommendation in the advice letter with only one or two examples.

Dr. Austin reminded the GNEB members that its recommendations need to be actionable; the 

Board needs to decide the level of detail to include in the recommendations. Those of 

Workgroup #4 are the most specific. Mr. Niemeyer stated that Workgroup #3 also developed 

specific recommendations that were not in the draft advice letter but were outlined in the 

Workgroup’s meeting notes. Dr. Austin suggested that the advice letter include the 

recommendations developed by Workgroup #4, as well as recommendations on best practices 

and legal gaps.

The definition of ecological restoration for inclusion in the advice letter was discussed. 

Dr. Eckert proposed expanding it so that it applies more explicitly to the needs and ecological 

restoration activities of the Border region.

Workgroup Reorganization

The GNEB members discussed merging Workgroups #2 and #3. Dr. Austin proposed that the 

members of the two Workgroups decide among themselves how to delegate upcoming activities

and leadership responsibilities.

Discussion of the GNEB Advice Letter and Report

Timeline

The GNEB members discussed the review of the draft advice letter prior to the September 

meeting. Several Board members stressed that sufficient time is needed for review at the 

management level and by legal counsel prior to the September meeting.

The GNEB members and EPA staff members discussed a timeline that would allow sufficient

time for review and enable the Board to complete the advice letter by the end of calendar year 

2013. Mr. Joyce proposed rescheduling the next meeting of the Board, which currently is slated 

for October 1, to the week of September 23. October 1 coincides with the first day of the federal 

government’s fiscal year, and there is the possibility of a government shutdown. He asked 

Ms. Gantner to poll the GNEB members about their availability to attend a 4-hour Board meeting 

during the week of September 23.

Dr. Austin expressed concern that no tribal representatives had attended this meeting and asked 

for assistance in ensuring that this is not the case for upcoming meetings. Dr. Austin agreed to 
10 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

summarize the proposed revised timeline for the advice letter and distribute it via email to the 

GNEB members. 

Next Steps

Mr. Joyce emphasized the need for the Board to prepare a working draft of the advice letter in 

time for discussion at its next meeting. At that meeting, the Board would either approve the draft 

pending editorial corrections or identify any significant issues that need to be addressed. If the 

draft is not ready for approval at the September meeting, there will be time to schedule a meeting 

in November for the Board to approve a revised draft. The Board members agreed to this 

approach for revising the advice letter.

Dr. Austin asked the Workgroup chairs about the written material that they anticipate providing 

for the advice letter. Mr. Anderson stated that Workgroup #4’s proposed recommendations for 

the advice letter are not likely to change from those in the draft letter.

Mr. Joyce asked the GNEB members whether they prefer to continue using the Workgroup 

format or want to form a writing team to draft the advice letter. Mr. Niemeyer suggested that it 

would be most efficient for a small group to draft the letter. Ms. Sally Spener nominated 

Mr. Niemeyer and Dr. Reed to draft a letter for review by the Workgroup members. 

Mr. Anderson offered his assistance. Dr. Pohlman volunteered to write the section related to 

DHS Border region activities. Ms. Mendoza stressed the importance of including examples from

geographic areas spanning the Border region. Dr. Austin proposed that the advice letter be short 

and not include an appendix of examples. Mr. Joyce stated that there is precedence for including 

a reference list as an appendix to the advice letter.

Mr. Niemeyer proposed a process for drafting the advice letter. The writing team will meet to 

develop an outline that will serve as a framework. On August 19, the team will circulate the 

framework to the GNEB members for comment. Ms. Spener suggested scheduling a 

teleconference for those GNEB members who are likely to have substantive feedback on the 

framework. All GNEB members would be welcome to attend. The feedback meeting will be 

scheduled by Ms. Gantner via a Doodle poll for the week of August 19. The GNEB members 

should provide comments to the writing team by August 30. Based on the comments and the 

feedback session, the writing team will prepare a draft advice letter that will be distributed to the 

GNEB members for review on September 10. 

Other Issues

Spanish Translation of the 15th Report

Dr. Austin informed the GNEB members that the first draft of the Spanish translation of the 15th 

Report of the GNEB to the President and Congress of the United States has been completed. The 

translation currently is undergoing review. Once the review is completed and the Spanish version 

is finalized, it will be made available online. Dr. Austin indicated that she will notify the Board 

members when the Spanish report is finalized.
August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

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.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:28 p.m. The meeting teleconference line remained open until 

4:00 p.m., however, to offer members of the public the opportunity to provide comments.
12 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Action Items

 Board members should review the list of ecological restoration projects in the draft 

advice letter for omitted projects that should be included, particularly the following:

Brownfields restorations, small-scale projects, projects located on land formerly used for 

agriculture, and ecological restoration efforts on the Upper Rio Grande.

 Board members should review the lists of data inventories, tools, performance metrics

and models in the draft advice letter for additional entries that should be included, 

particularly data from states other than Texas.

 Mr. Anderson and members of Workgroup #4 will consult with the GNEB members to 

identify projects that might serve as case studies for the development of data inventories, 

as well as the use of tools, performance metrics and models.

 Dr. Austin will summarize the proposed revised timeline for the advice letter and 

distribute it via email to the GNEB members.

 Ms. Gantner will poll the GNEB members about their availability to attend a meeting to 

provide feedback on the advice letter framework during the week of August 19.

 Ms. Gantner will poll the GNEB members about their availability to attend a Board 

meeting during the week of September 23.

 All of the GNEB members, including tribal representatives, should endeavor to attend the 

upcoming Board meetings.
August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13

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

Jose Angel

Assistant Executive Officer

Colorado River Basin Region

California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board

Palm Desert, CA

Kevin Bixby

Executive Director

Southwest Environmental Center

Las Cruces, NM

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

Luis E. Ramírez, MSFS

President

Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC

Phoenix, AZ

Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.

Conservation Director

Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter

Austin, TX

Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.

Lecturer

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Texas at El Paso

El Paso, TX

Timothy Treviño

Senior Director of Strategic Planning &

Agency Communications

Alamo Area Council of Governments

San Antonio, TX

Erin Ward

Director

U.S.-Mexico Border Projects

New Mexico Water Resources Research 

Institute

Las Cruces, NM

Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.

Director

Colorado River Delta Program

Sonoran Institute

Tucson, AZ
14 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Federal Members

Department of Health and Human Services

Jose Luis Velasco

Executive Director

U.S. Section

U.S.-México Border Health Commission

Office of Global Affairs

Department of Health and Human Services

El Paso, TX

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 Alternate

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 Health and Human Services

Lorraine Navarrete

Binational Operations Coordinator

U.S. Section

U.S.-México Border Health Commission

Office of Global Affairs

Department of Health and Human Services

El Paso, TX

Department of State

Jock Whittlesey

International Relations Officer

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs

Department of State

Washington, D.C.

Department of Transportation

Camille Mittelholtz

Acting Director

Office of Safety, Energy and Environment

Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C.
August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15

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 6

Gina Weber

U.S-Mexico Border Program

U.S. EPA, Region 6

Dallas, TX

Region 9

Alhelí Baños-Keener

U.S.-Mexico Border Specialist

U.S. EPA, Region 9

San Diego, CA

EPA Participants

Ann-Marie Gantner

Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

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.

Steven J. Weber

Office of Inspector General

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

Other Participants

Casey Dietrich

CQ Transcriptions

Washington, D.C.

Hector Dominguez

Information Technology Specialist

U.S. Section

U.S.-México Border Health Commission

Office of Global Affairs

Department of Health and Human Services

El Paso, TX

Allie Wechsler

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Contractor Support

Jennifer G. Lee, Ph.D.

Science Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD
16 August 6, 2013, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Agenda

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

12:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. (EDT)

Call-In: 866-299-3188, Conference Code: 2022330068

12:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions

 Mark Joyce, Associate Director

GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

 Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. EPA Office of Diversity Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Diane Austin, Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

 Board Members 

12:10 – 12:20 Overview of Agenda

 Diane Austin, Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

12:20 – 1:00 Overview of Workgroup Progress

 Workgroup #1 – Define Ecological Restoration and Why It Is Important

Greg Eckert, Workgroup Chair

 Workgroup #2 – Review of Border-Specific Programs and Where Ecological 

Restoration Resonates, Is Incorporated, Etc.

Cyrus Reed, Workgroup Chair

 Workgroup #3 – Review of Ecological Restoration Efforts With Federal 

Involvement 

Steve Niemeyer, Workgroup Chair

 Workgroup #4 – Review of Data/Tools/Performance Indicators/Models

Dave Anderson, Workgroup Chair

1:00 – 3:00 Discussion of Advice Letter Priorities and Workgroup Reorganization

3:00 – 3:40 Discussion of GNEB Advice Letter and Report

 Timeline

 Next steps

3:40 – 3:50 Other issues

 Spanish Translation of 15th Report 

3:50 – 4:00 Public Comments

4:00 Adjournment