Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Imperial Beach, California

^ Environmental Advisors Across Borders

NEB

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting

Marriott Pier South
800 Seacoast Drive
Imperial Beach, California

February 9 - 10, 2017

Meeting Summary

February 9,2017

Welcome, Introductions and Overview of Agenda

Mark Joyce, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Associate Director, Federal Advisory
Committee Management Division (FACMD), Office of Administration and Resources Management
(OARM), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB; and Honorable
Serge Dedina, Mayor of Imperial Beach, California

Mr. Mark Joyce, Acting GNEB DFO and Associate Director of FACMD, and Dr. Paul Ganster, GNEB
Chair, welcomed the participants and thanked Mayor Serge Dedina for hosting the meeting in Imperial
Beach, California. Mayor Dedina thanked the GNEB members for their work on the border, noting the
importance of solving border problems in a cooperative manner with Mexico to improve border security
and environmental protection. Imperial Beach, as a border town, works with Mexico to provide a safe and
healthy environment for the humans and wildlife that inhabit the area. The area also has become a model
for sustainable tourism and promotes a conservational landscape.

Dr. Ganster asked the Board members to introduce themselves and provided an overview of the agenda. A
list of meeting participants is included as Appendix A; the meeting agenda is included as Appendix B.
The official certification of the minutes by the Chair is included as Appendix C.

GNEB members were provided with the following materials: GNEB 10th Report: Environmental
Projection and Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border (www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
06/documents/01gneb 10th english.pdf); GNEB advice letter to the president dated December 2, 2009
(www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/2009 1202 advise letter.pdf); the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) response letter dated December 24, 2009; (www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/documents/2009 1224 gordon letter gneb chair.pdf); and the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ) response letter dated April 21, 2010 (www.epa. go v/sites/production/files/documents/

2010 0421 gneb ceq response letter final.pdf).

Federal Perspectives on Environmental Conditions Along the U.S-Mexico Border—Federally
Managed Trust Resources

Overview of Federal Lands and Border Conditions: Land Management and Trust Responsibilities on
the Southwest Border

Jon Andrew, Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, Department of the Interior (DOI)

Mr. Jon Andrew, DOI, described DOFs mission to protect and manage the country's natural resources
and cultural heritage. DOI encompasses a number of different bureaus with vast responsibilities,

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
including jurisdiction of 780 miles (40%) of the southwest border; bureaus relevant to border issues are
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). A wide variety of
substantial natural and cultural resources exist along the southwest border, and several acts
(e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Historic Preservation Act) give DOI jurisdiction over federal
lands and migratory species. DOI's most significant trust responsibility is endangered species.

The southwest border area comprises 12 million acres within 50 miles of the border, including four
wilderness areas and the tribal land of 10 tribal nations. Mr. Andrew described southwest borderlands and
their natural resources from California to Texas that are under DOI jurisdiction, including the Tijuana
Slough National Wildlife Refuge, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation
Area, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Coronado
National Memorial, San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Big Bend National Park, and
Amistad National Recreation Area. DOI has made a significant investment to address border concerns
and works with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to decrease the environmental impacts of
border security.

Dr. Keith Pezzoli, University of California, San Diego, commented that the Obama administration had
elevated the issue of soil erosion. He asked whether this was a significant issue in DOI-managed lands on
the southwest border. Mr. Andrew explained that some river erosion occurs, but it is not a major concern.

Dr. David Eaton, The University of Texas at Austin, asked whether BLM has developed prospective plans
to enhance the environment and what DOI needs from GNEB to plan and integrate ecosystem
improvements. Mr. Andrew responded that each DOI bureau has its own planning process that it is
required to update periodically. GNEB could provide recommendations about these planning processes.
The USGS Climate Science Centers also could benefit from broad GNEB recommendations.

Mr. Scott Storment, Green Hub Advisers, LLC, asked about the effects of ozone on DOI-managed lands.
Mr. Andrew responded that several DOI bureaus have air quality offices that manage these issues. Big
Bend National Park has air quality issues, but he has not heard about this specific issue in other areas.

In response to a question from Mr. Luis Olmedo, Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc., Mr. Andrew explained
that Salton Sea water is under the jurisdiction of DOI, and water issues are of major concern. His
presentation focused on border-adjacent areas, and most of the Salton Sea issues are away from the
border.

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Andy Yuen, Project Leader, FWS

Mr. Andy Yuen, FWS, explained that the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex—which includes
the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, Seal Beach National
Wildlife Refuge, and Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge—is a small part of the much larger
National Wildlife Refuge System, a system of lands and associated trust resources throughout the United
States and its territories. The San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex was established in 1974 as
the result of a decision to develop some area land while conserving other land. All of the land in the
complex is within the border zone.

The Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge is located at the southern end of California in Imperial
Beach and protects numerous endangered and threatened species. The Tijuana Slough National Wildlife
Refuge is part of the larger Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, which fosters cooperation
and communication. The Public Lands Liaison Agent Program is an important feature of the research

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
reserve's advisory council. The research reserve represents a cross-border binational effort that yields
significant benefits. Approximately 75 percent of the Tijuana River Watershed lies in Mexico, and
activities south of the border affect the estuary north of the border. The four primary issues that affect the
estuary are sedimentation, trash and debris, antibiotic-resistant genes in sediment, and nutrients and
eutrophication.

Recently, a long stretch of shoreline from the U.S.-Mexico border to Coronado, California, was closed
because of significant amounts of untreated sewage flowing in from the Tijuana River. Mr. Yuen
presented water quality data that, following the contamination event, highlighted the value of long-term
monitoring and showed how raw sewage effects dissolved oxygen, salinity and water levels in the
estuary, which in turn affect wildlife (e.g., fish kills, harmful algal blooms).

The San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge comprises two units. The South San Diego Bay Unit
includes 2,300 acres of salt ponds converted to salt marsh; the Sweetwater Marsh Unit includes 341 acres
of tidal salt marsh. The San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge is recognized as a Globally Important
Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy, and one challenge is mitigating the effects of contaminants
on sea bird eggs (e.g., decreased eggshell thickness, increased post-hatch mortality). The refuge was
established as part of a Multiple Species Conservation Program to protect sensitive species found in San
Diego County. Recently, acquisition of the 1,905-acre Hidden Valley Tract, a key parcel of land, was
made possible by funding from DHS and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).

Dr. Pezzoli asked whether the estuary is important to the fishing industry. Mr. Yuen responded that all of
the estuaries have significant roles in supporting habitat for commercially important fish species, as they
serve as nursery grounds. They also are important for recreational fishing.

Ms. Laura Abram, First Solar, Inc., asked whether the beach improvements that caused the contamination
event had been reviewed prior to implementation. Mr. Yuen explained that an Environmental Impact
Report had been completed, but the accompanying modeling had been incorrect. It was not a federal
project, so a National Environmental Policy Act review was not necessary.

Ms. Beverly Mather-Marcus, U.S. Department of State, asked whether the river is the primary source of
contamination or whether contamination from sources farther south moves up the coast. Mr. Yuen replied
that the Tijuana River is the primary source, but sewage treatment plants in Mexico also can have an
effect.

Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve

JeffPayne, Director, Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA); and Becky Smyth, Office for Coastal Management, NOAA

Mr. Jeff Payne, NOAA, explained that NOAA has a science-based mission, and NOAA data were
important to GNEB's recent report on climate change. NOAA conducts business in partnership with state
and federal agencies. His agency considers the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve to be
an important effort. Ms. Becky Smyth, NOAA, explained that the research reserve is one such reserve in
the larger National Estuarine Research Reserve System, which networks organizations and transfers
information internally and externally.

The research reserve's ecosystem management provides benefits to border security activities, the
ecosystem itself and the surrounding community. To the four primary issues that affect the estuary that
Mr. Yuen mentioned in his presentation, Ms. Smyth would add flooding, sea level rise and climate
change. Another important consideration is whether current plans will be protective in the future.
Collaborating with NOAA allows the research reserve to leverage resources to establish projects that
address science and socioeconomic concerns regarding flooding, sedimentation and climate change.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Including the socioeconomic aspects helps the community as well as border security because the personal
safety of border patrol agents is better protected.

The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve has the ability to transfer user experiences and
specifically has transferred methodologies that can be used in Alaska to address issues. The research
reserve always considers how the different projects on which it works can be leveraged to reduce
duplicative efforts.

Dr. Ganster noted the significant emphasis on cross-border collaboration in all of the presentations. It is
important to collaboratively examine binational problems to develop binational solutions. Border security
can be a positive contribution to this effort.

Mr. Jose Angel, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, asked about the level of coordination
that occurs and any protocols in place regarding the sharing of monitoring data with responders.
Ms. Amber Craig, U.S. Border Patrol, responded that when Mexico needs to shut down a pump, it notifies
the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which in turn notifies the United States.
Ms. Smyth added that the Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System also makes data
available, including real-time data. Agreements with Mexico have been established, so Mexico's data are
being included, and the research reserve also works with the Scripps Research Institute.

Illegal Cross-Border Activity and the Environmental Impacts

Overview of Border Security Profile

James Nielsen, Supervisory Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol, CBP, DHS

Agent James Nielsen, U.S. Border Patrol, explained that the CBP includes three components, the Office
of Field Operations, which operates at ports of entry; the U.S. Border Patrol, which protects and serves
the areas between ports of entry; and Air and Marine Operations, which assists the first two components.
The U.S. Border Patrol jurisdiction extends beyond the immediate border area and contains 20 sectors.
The San Diego Sector is the smallest sector in the continental United States, but often it is the busiest,
with a high amount of illegal immigration. The terrain of the eight stations in the sector—six of which are
along the border—varies, which creates challenges. The mountainous areas contain no border security
infrastructure. The sector now focuses on preventing terrorists and terror weapons from entering the
United States. Agent Nielsen displayed photographs that highlight the differences in the border area
between the 1990s and now; infrastructure (e.g., primary fencing, secondary fencing, surveillance towers,
stadium lighting) has lessened the environmental footprint of border security because the number of off-
shoot roads and amount of foot traffic have decreased. U.S. Border Patrol personnel undergo annual
training to understand the environmental impacts of their work and cultivate environmental stewardship.

Agent Nielsen highlighted the tunneling activities of criminal elements. Three types of tunnels exist:
rudimentary, interconnecting and sophisticated. The latter type of tunnels include ventilation, lighting and
rail systems. Criminals also use ultra-light aircraft to circumvent border security. Often, these aircraft
drop cargo in the United States and return to Mexico, so the U.S. Border Patrol works with Mexico to
allow the Mexican authorities to apprehend the suspects on return to that country. Criminals use maritime
routes for drug and human trafficking, and as U.S. border security has improved, the smugglers head
farther north each year, up to San Francisco. To curtail these maritime threats, the U.S. Border Patrol
works with the U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security Investigations, local law enforcement and
lifeguards. The U.S. Border Patrol also has several specialty units, including canine, plain clothes, horse
and tactical.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Positive and Negative Environmental Impacts of Border Security

Paul Enriquez, Chief, Environmental Branch, Office of Facilities and Asset Management, CBP, DHS

Mr. Paul Enriquez, CBP, explained that the Office of Facilities and Asset Management fits within CBP's
Enterprise Services and provides support and human resource functions for CBP. To facilitate border
security operations and achieve its mission, CBP deploys several resources that are referred to
collectively as tactical infrastructure, such as primary and secondary fences, patrol and access roads,
security lighting, and surveillance towers. The goal of the CBP environmental program is to avoid, reduce
and mitigate impacts of the tactical infrastructure.

CBP environmental planning efforts are governed by federal statutes and regulations, executive orders,
and state regulations. Common laws that affect CBP environmental planning include several that already
have been mentioned in other presentations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered
Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The U.S. Border Patrol
and Air and Marine Operations define their requirements, and the Office of Facilities and Asset
Management then evaluates and determines the appropriate level of environmental planning, consults and
coordinates with stakeholders, and prepares documentation as part of its environmental planning process
to meet these requirements. Most of the activities involve maintenance and repair of existing structures
and have little environmental impact. CBP examines even minor processes and categorical exclusions
with a robust system to ensure that environmental and cultural conditions are considered. Best
management practices are implemented, and all contractors are trained to follow these practices. In 2016,
approximately 225 actions were evaluated, resulting in approximately 220 categorical exclusions and five
environmental assessments.

Mr. Enriquez highlighted the example of tactical infrastructure construction in Smugglers Gulch in the
San Diego Sector. Perceived impacts of the construction included erosion of built slopes and the resulting
sedimentation of a nearby stream and estuary, removal of natural habitat, and the spread of nonnative
invasive species in the area. To mitigate environmental impacts, CBP developed a robust restoration
program in cooperation with FWS, California State Parks, the County of San Diego, and other partners;
the program included the restoration of native plants and removal of nonnative invasive species. The
infrastructure has resulted in a significant reduction in cross-border violations and decreased estuary
damage from cross-border traffic. The restoration efforts also have been successful based on 5-year
measurements. Tactical infrastructure preventing illegal immigrant use of abandoned mine shafts has
contributed to recovery of the lesser long-nosed bat.

CBP developed several environmental stewardship summary reports that compared the original planned
installation of infrastructure against the final design and footprint. In most cases, the surveyed impacts
were less than predicted as a result of careful implementation of the best management practices identified
for each area. The completed reports as well as in-progress reports are available on the CBP website
(www.cbp.gov/about/environmental-cultural-stewardship/nepa-documents/esp-essr').

Dr. Ganster noted that it would be helpful to review the CBP's environmental stewardship reports as the
Board is developing its report.

Mr. Olmedo asked why some environmental hazards (e.g., New River issues, gate and trash issues)
continue despite CBP's focus on environmental protection. Mr. Enriquez explained that his office
manages gate maintenance with the U.S. Border Patrol. CBP works with contractors to mitigate any
impacts related to opening gates, and a system is in place to address environmental concerns. Ms. Sylvia
Grijalva, U.S. Department of Transportation, added that the General Services Administration works at the
ports of entry and has begun to address some of the New River issues.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Mr. Tom Davis, Yuma County Water Users' Association, asked whether the Office of Facilities and Asset
Management manages the Yuma Sector. Mr. Enriquez indicated that it did.

Successfully Balancing Management of Border Security Infrastructure and the Mission of the DOI

Jon Andrew, Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, DOI

Mr. Andrew explained that DOI has built a relationship and trust with DHS regarding the balance of
border security and environmental protection. It is not a matter of choosing between the two but rather an
issue of how to achieve both. Because of the vast southwest border area, it is difficult to protect border
security without negative environmental impacts. Annual southwest border arrests have decreased from
1 million in 1983 to 400,000 currently. Approximately 40,000 to 50,000 arrests occur on DOI-managed
lands each year. The problems of illegal immigration and smuggling resulted in a 2006 Memorandum of
Understanding among DHS, DOI, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding cooperative
national security and counterterrorism efforts on federal border lands. This memorandum provided a
framework to restore lands affected by criminal activity.

In the past, planning for border security infrastructure was carried out under time constraints and
additional pressures. Coordination has improved, and DOI now keeps pace with CBP construction efforts
and environmental reviews. The U.S. Border Patrol's Public Lands Liaison Agent Program connects land
managers to border security activities, and cooperation among FWS, BLM and the U.S. Border Patrol has
increased. Towers have decreased illegal activities in the areas in which they are installed.

Mr. Andrew cited many examples of federal cooperation to enhance border security and environmental
protection. U.S. Border Patrol agents help with the annual effort to increase Sonoran pronghorn recovery.
The National Park Service conducts interpretative programs at the international border, and these tours
immediately fill to capacity. Efforts are underway to remove abandoned vehicles in the Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge, install mobile rescue beacons in the Arizona desert, operate a modular forward
operating base that decreases illegal traffic, provide equipment and vehicle storage for CBP, control
erosion and provide patrol access by building a bridge in the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge,
install "cat holes" in border fencing to allow small animal migration, and restore habitat in the Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument by removing unused roads. The latter effort resulted in the receipt of the
Wilderness Stewardship Award.

Mr. Joyce asked about energy sources at the towers. Mr. Andrew responded that the tower is self-
sustaining and provide solar power to the agents who live in these locations.

Security Inspections at Commercial and Non-Commercial Ports of Entry

John Armijo, Assistant Director, San Diego Office of Field Operations, CBP, DHS

Agent John Armijo, CBP, presented a 5-minute video that highlighted statistics from U.S.-Mexico ports
of entry in the San Diego Sector. The San Diego Office of Field Operations represents six of 329 ports of
entry in the United States and leverages technology to ensure that the large volume of port traffic is
moved in an efficient manner that balances the enforcement missions of the office. Ports of entry are an
"all-threats" environment, and the office seizes illegal narcotics (e.g., fentanyl) and arrests undocumented
immigrants. Radio-frequency identification (RFID) capability and trusted traveler programs allow the
ports of entry to move traffic more efficiently. Since these approaches have been implemented, border
crossing times have been significantly reduced for the majority of traffic. This type of management also
can be applied to air and seaport environments.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
In response to a question from Ms. Edna Mendoza, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Agent
Armijo explained that fentanyl is a potent synthetic drug often mixed with cocaine and other controlled
substances.

Ms. Mendoza asked whether an outreach program exists to make people aware of the RFID technology.
Agent Armijo responded that CBP is marketing the program, and individuals can register for the
technology at two of the ports of entry and at global enrollment centers.

Ms. Mendoza asked whether it would be possible to obtain the video with the statistics about the ports of
entry to assist GNEB in writing its report. Dr. Teresa Pohlman, DHS, said that Ms. Jennifer Hass, DHS,
would make the source statistics about the port of entries available to the GNEB members.

Q&A and Discussion

Ms. Smyth asked Mr. Enriquez whether his office has the ability to fund programs on the other side of the
border that also protect the safety of U.S. agents (e.g., flood control programs). Mr. Enriquez responded
that he had not explored this specifically, but appropriations are provided to his office with specific intent.
It is difficult to transfer them to other U.S. agencies, so transferring them to a foreign government would
be a particular challenge.

Mr. Storment asked Mr. Enriquez about decreased emissions as a result of reduced idling times from the
expedited entry programs. Mr. Enriquez explained that some data analysis regarding this has been
performed, but he has not been involved. Ms. Grijalva added that a tool about emissions and border wait
times is being developed. Data analysis has been performed for El Paso, Texas, and currently is being
done for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry; the results will be made available. The Commission for
Environmental Cooperation also has performed some analyses.

Dr. Eaton commented that although cooperation with Mexico was emphasized during the presentations,
state and federal agencies discourage or disallow travel to Mexico. He wondered how the ability to cross
the border (or lack thereof) affects the ability to provide assistance. He also noted the number of arrests
mentioned in several presentations and wondered where the breaches were occurring. Israel has a border
fence, and very few individuals are able to breach it. He wondered why the United States still has this
problem.

Public Comments

Mr. Joyce called for public comments. No oral or written comments were offered.

Working Lunch at the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve Visitors Center

Overview of the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge and the Tijuana River National Estuarine
Research Reserve

Brian Collins, Refuge Manager, Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge, FWS

Mr. Brian Collins, FWS, explained that his co-presenter, Dr. Jeff Crooks, NOAA, was unable to attend,
and he would give both presentations. The County of San Diego is considered the "birdiest county in the
country" based on the number of bird species. Birds comprise a very important, complex environment on
this side of the border, serving as a microcosm of larger challenges (i.e., "the canary in the coal mine").
Mr. Collins displayed pictures of a number of different types of terns and highlighted their activities.
Because terns face a number of environmental challenges and have high energy requirements, when their
food sources are affected, their breeding is affected. Terns follow their prey and have specific
environmental breeding requirements; their habits are driven by climate. In 2016, three-quarters of the

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
world's elegant tern population visited the refuge, which represents a success. Because terns are
particularly sensitive to environmental contaminants and persistent toxicants, a significant investment has
been made in sewage treatment to clean up the environment. The county also is home to a number of
other ground-nesting bird species, such as the black skimmer and Western snowy plover.

A nonnative invasive species (Asian beetle) has entered the area and has devastated native flora in parts
of the slough in a short amount of time.

The Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge uses solar-powered satellites to track the migration of the
elegant tern and is highly concerned with the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The
National Estuarine Research Reserve System includes federal, state and nongovernmental partners that
protect natural resources. The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve uses temporal
information to steer wetland recovery in Southern California and also attempts to be as inclusive as
possible and educate and perform outreach to the local community. The research reserve and refuge are
thinking about possible futures to facilitate long-term management of the estuary.

A participant asked whether house cats present a challenge. Mr. Collins responded that they do, and a
predator management program has been established to trap cats and return them to their owners or turn
them over to animal control.

A participant commented that in addition to habitat enthusiasts, disadvantaged communities also are
present in the area. He asked whether the refuge and research reserve have problems engaging with these
communities. Mr. Collins responded that this has been a challenge, and the refuge recently received
$1 million to develop an urban refuge program to provide information about the natural resources to
underserved populations. The program has been expanded to six other cities, but San Diego was the first
to receive the award and develop a program. Refuge staff members have found that it is necessary to
perform outreach to children by the third grade; by the time the children reach the sixth grade, they are
not interested in the program. Outreach and education are a significant part of the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System, and every reserve in the system must employ an educational/outreach
coordinator to engage the community.

Discussion of the 18th Report to the President and Congress on Environment, Security and
Prosperity in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Mr. Joyce instructed the GNEB members to consider the structure, issues and timeline of the next report.
It will be important to identify leads for each report section before the end of the meeting. The meeting to
approve the report will be held in September 2017 rather than October 2017 so that the approval is within
fiscal year 2017. Teleconferences to discuss the report will be scheduled in the interim, with at least one
full Board teleconference scheduled prior to the approval meeting.

Statutory language in GNEB's charter requires the Board to produce an annual report about
environmental issues on the southwest border. The current suggested topic—"Environment, Security and
Prosperity in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region"—will need to be narrowed, and GNEB must identify a
subset of issues related to the topic on which to focus. Many of these issues were addressed by the Board
a decade ago in its 10th Report to the President and Congress: Environmental Projection and Border
Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border (10th Report).

Dr. Pohlman noted that border security is a sensitive issue. The Board members are not border security
experts, but the experts presented to GNEB during the meeting, and GNEB members now have a good
deal of information with which to work. It will be critical to integrate environmental security and
protection with border security. It would be interesting to perform a gap analysis to examine the

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
recommendations made in the 10th Report and determine what has been accomplished and which actions
worked and which did not. This would allow GNEB to modify or reiterate its previous recommendations.

In response to a question from Ms. Mendoza regarding the current administration transition, Mr. Joyce
explained that EPA is proceeding with "business as usual" until the Agency is given other instructions.
Dr. Pohlman agreed that all government agencies are taking this approach, and it is incumbent on the
Board to produce the best report possible no matter the current situation. GNEB's report is not a political
report.

Ms. Lisa Larocque, City of Las Cruces (New Mexico), commented that, in addition to DHS, many
agencies are integral to border security. These critical agencies are represented on GNEB. Dr. Eaton
agreed, noting that if the Board can build its report on the successes that have occurred since the 10th
Report, the current report will address the issues, identify best practices, embrace successful federal
government activities in this area, and ultimately be helpful to federal agencies.

Mr. Angel explained that, in addition to gathering facts, the Board serves in an advisory capacity for
decision makers. The report must address environmental impacts associated with border security activities
and make useful recommendations.

In response to a comment from Ms. Abram regarding the possibility of a future border wall, Dr. Pohlman
said that the report could not specifically address this issue because its status is unknown. The Board is
not qualified to assess border security. Ms. Abram explained that she was not referring to border security
issues but rather potential environmental impacts resulting from a border wall. The report could address
the possibility with a general approach and discuss the environmental impacts from a variety of different
infrastructures, including a wall. Mr. Andrew agreed that GNEB could provide information on how to
avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts from infrastructure.

Mr. Payne commented that the Board has an opportunity to highlight the successes in this area that have
occurred during the past 5 years. GNEB could use a scenario-based approach (i.e., "If this, then that.") in
writing the report. If rapid changes occur on the border, there may be ways to illustrate possible
environmental consequences that will need to be addressed. Ms. Grijalva agreed that best practices need
to be highlighted, and the Board could explore lessons learned from the fence built under the Bush
administration.

Ms. Mather-Marcus supported the idea of drawing on the 10th Report and performing a gap analysis. The
best management practices approach is a good one. The report also can include information about what
could happen depending on the future border wall situation. She thought that GNEB also should
investigate how activities in Mexico affect the United States, as the Board's 2016 report did. Dr. Ganster
agreed that it is critical to obtain information from Mexico, noting that he had wanted to invite officials
from Mexico, but it was a challenge because of the current transition. The U.S. Border Patrol has a good
relation with its counterparts in Mexico.

Ms. Mendoza noted that the suggested topic addresses the environment, security and prosperity.
Incorporating the environmental aspects (e.g., reduced emissions as a result of reduced wait times) will be
important. Highlighting collaboration is beneficial as well, especially as the collaboration goes beyond
federal agencies and includes state and local agencies.

Mr. Salvadore Salinas, USDA, reiterated that the Board's current mission with this report is to address
and report on issues regarding the environment and infrastructure. He thought that perhaps GNEB was
overcomplicating what the report should be. Regarding security, DHS is challenged by private land

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
ownership in Texas; in terms of prosperity, colonias1 are an issue in Texas, as are agricultural needs and
rural development. Prosperity may not be a major topic of the report, but it can be woven throughout the
various sections. Ms. Larocque suggested that the report could highlight that improving environmental
conditions has economic benefits.

Dr. Pohlman reminded the members not to lose sight of tribes as stakeholders. Dr. Ganster stated that
tribal issues will be integrated in the report and not lost.

Dr. Ganster presented background information on the 10th Report, explaining that the increased focus on
the North American Free Trade Agreement and border enforcement during the 1990s was driven by
Congress. After September 11, 2001, the view of the border shifted from an area of trade opportunities to
a defensive zone. DHS was established in 2002 and combined many agencies with different cultures. The
REAL ID Act of 2005 allows DHS to waive legal requirements (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act,
Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act) to facilitate construction of border infrastructure to deter
undocumented immigration. Security concerns now take precedence for many federal agencies, resulting
in major effects on environmental protection and land management agencies and activities.

Dr. Ganster displayed photographs that illustrate the rapid changes to the southwest border as a result of
programs to construct border fencing, install stadium lighting, employ more personnel, and apply
technology and remote sensing. Infrastructure and illegal activities leave an imprint on the environment,
and management of endangered species is an environmental challenge. Further challenges occur when
legitimate tribal border crossings are exploited by smugglers. The overall challenge is how to balance
border security activities and environmental quality.

The 10th Report focused on a number of themes, including undocumented human crossings in rural
stretches and hazardous materials (hazmat) shipments through urban crossings. The report identified four
challenges related to undocumented human crossings: (1) Roads and trails destroy habitat and cause
erosion. (2) Undocumented migrants and smugglers leave trash and solid waste. (3) Impenetrable fences
may pose problems for wildlife and sensitive areas. (4) Limited opportunities for collaboration exist
across security and land management agencies. The report also identified four challenges related to
hazmat shipments: (1) Limited training exists for hazmat inspection and ports of entry work, and tracking
and chemical storage data are lacking. (2) Emergency responders and their equipment lack the ability to
easily cross the border. (3) Emergency response technology, equipment and personnel often are
inadequate. (4) An overarching strategic plan to coordinate security and environment personnel at urban
crossings is lacking. GNEB provided recommendations related to all of these challenges and identified
successful projects and partnerships.

Dr. Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Sonoran Institute, asked whether the national conference that the Board
had recommended regarding the issue of impenetrable fences posing problems for wildlife had occurred.
Dr. Pohlman responded that many conferences regarding tactical infrastructure have been held during the
last decade, but she was unsure whether any conference focused specifically on the environmental
impacts of the infrastructure. A GNEB member added that many papers have been presented about
wildlife crossing and the best infrastructure and best management practices to facilitate this crossing.
Mr. Andrew noted that, although significant work about wildlife crossing has been performed throughout
the world, he was unaware of any effort to tie all of the information together. It might be helpful to
coordinate a symposium that brings all of the global work together.

1 An unregulated settlement/residential area along the U.S.-Mexico border that may lack some of the most basic
living necessities such as potable water and sewer systems, electricity, and safe and sanitary housing.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Ms. Mather-Marcus noted that, although it is important to remember that the three current joint inspection
programs are pilot programs, the Board could examine the impacts of these pilots. EPA is performing air
quality analysis, and these data could be integrated into such an examination. She also stated that it will
be critical for GNEB to define "security" for the purpose of this report. Security is a broad topic and
includes law enforcement, hazmat, agricultural inspections and the literal security of border communities,
among other issues. The Board will need to define which aspects of security it will focus on in this report.

Mr. Salinas noted that one recommendation from the 10th Report was to foster cooperation among federal
agencies and establish an interagency task force. This is critical and needs to be included in this report if it
did not come to fruition. The report most emphasize increased cooperation, a reduction in duplicative
efforts, and increased leveraging of assets.

Dr. Eaton encouraged the GNEB members to perform the gap analysis that night to have a foundation for
the next day's discussions. Any topics or issues that are not written/outlined before the meeting has
concluded will not be incorporated into the report. Dr. Pohlman agreed to lead the gap analysis effort, but
she explained that it was not a process that could be completed overnight because it must be done in a
thorough, considered manner that includes consultation with other federal agencies. She volunteered to
provide information within 1 week. The Board's recommendations ultimately must effect change across
the federal government in terms of environmental strategies. CEQ provides environmental "scorecards,"
but it is not a cohesive group that discusses environmental issues across the federal government. Although
regional groups exist, a focal group at the federal level is needed.

Mr. Joyce reiterated that, before the end of the meeting, the Board must determine which issues it would
like to address, recognizing that the scope and scale may evolve during the writing of the report.
Dr. Ganster suggested using the 10th Report as the core to begin work on the new report. GNEB can refer
to the previous recommendations and determine what has been accomplished and identify any
shortcomings. The report will provide the logic for current actions and advance ideas and options for
protecting the environment while simultaneously protecting the mission of border security. Mr. Andrew
agreed that the 10th Report serves well as a framework for writing the current report.

Ms. Abram noted that a clear and realistic timeline will be needed to complete the report. Dr. Ganster said
that the text must be completed well before the September meeting. Dr. Eaton highlighted the five phases
of report writing: outlining the report, writing the initial draft, adding additional documentation, finalizing
the draft, and editing the finalized report.

Dr. Zamora-Arroyo cited the following sentences on page 19 of the 10th Report: "Effective barriers can
decrease the number of undocumented crossings, thereby decreasing likely ecosystem damage. An
effective fence or wall project also can reduce the footprint of border enforcement activities, allowing
more habitats to remain in a natural state and reducing the need for off-road pursuit." This does not
describe wildlife crossing or specific environmental impacts. When the report was written, GNEB did not
have the information that is available now. The Board must review this information and address
infrastructure issues. It may be helpful for GNEB to focus on one issue in depth instead of covering
several issues in less depth.

Dr. Payne stated that, given the compressed timeline, the Board will be compelled to develop a report
similar to the 10th Report (i.e., without a good deal of extraneous information). He noted that GNEB's
last report was more than 100 pages long.

Dr. Pohlman stated that emergency response continues to be a challenge on the border. Mr. Storment
called the members' attention to the fact that the name of the Board includes the phrase "Good Neighbor."
The report must focus on how the United States can cooperate with Mexico to benefit both countries. As
Dr. Pohlman mentioned, emergency response is a perfect example of how the countries must interact with

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
each other to be successful. The attitude should be "us" rather than "you and me." Ms. Mendoza pointed
out that, in addition to emergency response, trash continues to be an issue, and best management practices
are needed. Dr. Ganster agreed that trash is a critical issue. Ms. Abrams added that infrastructure best
practices is another important issue.

Ms. Lauren Baldwin, City of El Paso (Texas), liked the approach of strategically employing a mix of
technology and personnel to meet border security and environmental needs and agreed that it would be
best to begin with the 10th Report and determine progress that has been made and what research has been
completed since then. Ms. Larocque added that the report could include the prosperity benefits from
ecotourism and the vitality of ecosystem services. Dr. Payne agreed, noting that the trash issue affects
ecotourism and ecosystem services. Dr. Eaton suggested that the role of border facilities and their
connection to air and water quality be explored. Mr. Angel added that the trash issue is driven by wet
weather events; therefore, water quality issues must inherently be addressed. Ms. Grijalva commented
that emissions at the ports of entry are being studied, but completing the analysis is a difficult process.
Although the data are not available currently, she can write a paragraph about data analysis efforts in this
area. Dr. Ganster noted that data are being accumulated in various areas and could be gathered.

Mr. Storment explained that San Antonio, Texas, is about to be classified as a noncontainment area,
which will have public health and economic affects, and the city is studying both of these effects.
Additionally, border security cannot be addressed without tying the issue to border sister cities.

Dr. Ganster and Mr. Joyce reiterated that the Board will need to reach consensus on the issues of focus for
the next report and identify section leaders before the end of the meeting. Ms. Pohlman summarized the
seven issues that had been offered: emergency response, trash, water and air quality, ecotourism and
ecosystem services and their relationship to prosperity, invasive species, infrastructure, and cross-border
coordination and stakeholder participation.

Dr. Ganster recessed the meeting at 5:32 p.m. PST.

February 10,2017

Discussion of Next Meetings and Other Business

Mr. Joyce reminded the GNEB members that the upcoming report will focus on the intersection of
environmental protection and border security and how to achieve objectives in both areas. The report
must contain rationale and justification for the recommendations as well as citations to original source
materials. Although the report is provided to the President of the United States and Congress, the
audience for the report is broad and includes federal, state, local and tribal agencies, as well as
nongovernmental organizations and academia. Many entities find the Board's reports useful. The goal is
to develop a draft of the report early enough that it can be discussed during a full GNEB teleconference in
mid-May. Dr. Ganster added that the Board members need to identify components of the report that can
be accomplished realistically rather than idealistically.

Dr. Ganster presented the report outline that had been developed based on the prior day's discussion:

• Section 1: Retrospective and Content

• Section 2: Exemplary Practices

• Section 3: Challenges

o Ecosystem services strategies
o Emergency response

o Community understanding, will and information regarding the bigger picture

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
o Trash control and sediment management
o Invasive species

o Ports of entry and border wait times
o Incorporation of innovative technology
o Human health and border crossing
• Section 4: Recommendations

Ms. Hass suggested identifying an expert to discuss the U.S.-Mexico economic situation from a security
perspective. Ms. Grijalva noted that several reports, including those from the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, discuss the topic. She wondered whether GNEB's report should discuss
economics in general or directly in relation to border security (e.g., ecotourism). Dr. Ganster explained
that SAND AG has data on border crossing wait times and the associated environmental and economic
impacts; he can provide text for the report based on these data.

Dr. Zamora-Arroyo asked for clarification on the scope of the report. It will be important to examine the
benefits and potential impacts of infrastructure; the report may not be well-received if the binational
cooperation aspect is not included. The GNEB members agreed that a binational perspective is implicit in
the report. Dr. Zamora-Arroyo added that conferences that have been held regarding border infrastructure
should be incorporated into the report.

Ms. Mendoza commented that she knows individuals in Arizona who can help with the economic aspects;
she also volunteered to work on the trash issue.

Mr. Angel suggested that the report highlight case studies rather than devoting a section to exemplary
practices. Ms. Abram agreed, noting that exemplary practices should be woven through the report. She
recommended that a section focus on infrastructure, which can include best management practices,
benefits and impacts. Grid security is a key component of security and emergency preparedness, and solar
energy plays a role in grid security. She volunteered to work on a section within the issue of emergency
preparedness about the role solar energy plays in fostering a resilient grid and providing power and
energy to remote communities.

Ms. Larocque noted that air pollution is a component of border-crossing efficiency, but this topic can be
expanded on by including air pollution of maquiladoras2 and providing security to border residents by
ensuring that they have clean air. Dr. Ganster did not think that reliable data on factory pollution are
available. Ms. Larocque said that she would be willing to determine whether any data from Texas exist.
This topic could fit under the security of having good health, which is another interpretation of the term
"security." Mr. Storment agreed that the maquiladoras would not have data and added that infrastructure
security is a neutral, not political, topic.

Dr. Pezzoli asked whether the Board was setting a precedent by focusing on a historical perspective.
Mr. Joyce responded that a historical perspective has not been completed in a systematic manner.
Dr. Pezzoli noted that value is added because this perspective makes it a special report. He referred to the
presentation by Mr. Enriquez on the previous day that stated that of 225 actions, 220 were categorically
exempt. He would like to understand the nature of these categorical exemptions. The challenge will be to
determine direct and indirect impacts; for example, public health is an indirect consequence, and
unintended economic consequences also may emerge. Additionally, transportation is an important issue to
the 14 border sister cities. SAND AG is attempting to deal with the issue of multimodal transit planning to
facilitate cross-border communication.

2 Manufacturing plants located in Mexico that assemble goods largely from imported components. The final
products are exported to the U.S. market.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Mr. Davis said that it was important for the report to make clear immediately that border security is
paramount. GNEB does not have knowledge of all border security technology available and needs to stay
away from the minute details of such technology. Much about border security, including virtual security,
has been learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Board should recommend that the best technology that
leaves the smallest footprint on the environment be used but should leave the determination of what that
technology may be to the experts. Ms. Abram added that the report must examine the environmental
footprint of any technology or infrastructure that may be considered for use.

Mr. Angel thought that stormwater issues needed to be included in the trash control and sedimentation
management section, including the topic of how wastewater affects border security. Individual states
perform monitoring, but no formal monitoring network exists. Maquiladoras also affect air quality in
terms of the traffic emissions from the number of people who work at them. Dr. Pohlman agreed that
traffic and other activities leave an environmental footprint in addition to infrastructure, and the focus
should not be on infrastructure alone. GNEB should explore environmental impacts from infrastructure,
business processes and cross-border traffic.

Ms. Mather-Marcus liked the way that Mr. Angel had framed the report in terms of how border security
affects the environment and how environmental issues in turn affect border security. She added that
overarching federal emergency management agreements with Mexico are in place. She will provide the
current standing agreements regarding border emergency response to Mr. Joyce so that he can forward
them to the GNEB members.

Dr. Payne noted that a natural connection exists between ecosystem services and extreme weather events.
Ms. Mendoza added that USGS has performed a good deal of work on ecosystem services. She also
thought that two specific trash issues are wastewater/stormwater and foot traffic.

Ms. Larocque commented that common threads need to be incorporated into the challenges section. For
example, how the environment can make security more challenging and how security can make
maintaining the long-term services of the environment more difficult. It will be important for GNEB to
advocate for cooperation among all federal agencies and for agencies to work at their full capacity. This is
critical for the border.

Mr. Storment asked what the term "border security" means in the context of this report and for federal
agencies. Dr. Pohlman responded that the DHS website (www.dhs.gov/what-securitv-and-resilience')
contains a statement that defines security as "as reducing the risk to critical infrastructure by physical
means or defense cyber measures to intrusions, attacks, or the effects of natural or manmade disasters."
That is, keeping "bad people" out and protecting the U.S. population from "bad things." The definition
does not need to be complicated. Dr. Ganster explained that GNEB could develop its own definition that
meets its needs for the report. Mr. Storment thought that security is broader than the DHS definition;
border security is about a binational definition. Mr. Andrew added that the DHS definition includes any
measures taken to achieve security (e.g., fences, towers, patrols). Air quality is included if border security
activities or infrastructure create air quality issues. Mr. Angel agreed that environmental goals and border
security cannot be secured without binational cooperation.

Dr. Eaton noted that the retrospective must include border security because it is a significant part of the
10th Report. Ms. Abram added that the retrospective will touch on many issues in addition to
infrastructure. She thought that security and what it entails needs to be discussed in its own section of the
report. Ms. Grijalva agreed. Dr. Pezzoli noted that the DHS definition of border security does not speak to
food, water and energy security. The National Science Foundation recently elevated what it calls the
"food-energy-water security trilemma" to a high-priority status. To what extent does border security allow
the United States to share with Mexico a method to deal with food-energy-water system flows? This is

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
one approach to relate border security to homeland security. Ms. Grijalva agreed that this relates quite
well. Mr. Davis noted that Yuma, Arizona, is a good example of being able to function effectively and
securely. Products and labor are exchanged across the border at Yuma, and the local border is under
complete control and secure.

Mr. Andrew liked the idea of including issues and opportunities raised by the food-water-energy nexus
but was unsure how it could be related to the environmental impacts of border security. Dr. Ganster
responded that the report could include a section discussing additional security challenges. Mr. Andrew
suggested that opportunities be explored in this section in addition to challenges.

Ms. Mather-Marcus commented that it is necessary for the Board members to work with the same
definition of security while writing their sections of the report. She volunteered to develop a definition for
the term "security" that Mr. Joyce can circulate among the GNEB members for their input. A GNEB
member noted that the 10th Report contains definitions of various types of security on page 9.

Mr. Joyce stated that the workgroups are responsible for organizing themselves and scheduling meetings.
The workgroups must produce initial text in a timeframe that allows Ms. Kristen LeBaron, The Scientific
Consulting Group, Inc., to collate the text and GNEB members to review it prior to the mid-May
teleconference. Workgroups also should keep track of original source materials to be included in the
reference list. Members also should begin to identify charts, graphs and photographs that will be included
in the final report. Dr. Eaton thought that the workgroups should have their text completed by mid-March.

Mr. William Bresnick, DHS, commented that the Board has a charge in terms of developing the next
report and redefining this charge could affect how the report is received. The food-energy-water triad
could be the focus of GNEB's next report. The report must focus on maximizing environmental
protection in the context of border security actions.

Public Comments

Mr. Joyce called for public comments. No oral or written comments were offered.

Continued Work on Development of the 18th Report

The GNEB members discussed the structure of the report and corresponding assignments, which are
highlighted in the action items below.

Ms. Larocque noted that economic values and community understanding should be highlighted in each
challenge and opportunity section. Dr. Pezzoli agreed that the importance of community engagement in
achieving solutions should be elevated within each section.

Mr. Wayne Belzer, International Boundary and Water Commission, agreed that infrastructure should be
described in its own section, but he has a different perspective on what defines infrastructure. He thought
that the proper handling of wastewater and drinking water along the border needed to be addressed in the
report.

Mr. Salinas asked about the distance from the border that would be considered the border area.
Dr. Ganster responded that the Board's last report extended the definition of the border area to include
watersheds; this report likely will have a more narrow focus. Mr. Joyce added that the definition has been
variable in past reports, but the La Paz Agreement defines the border area as 100 kilometers (62 miles) on
each side of the border. The North American Development Bank and Border Environment Cooperation
Commission extend this definition to 300 kilometers (186 miles) on the Mexican side. Dr. Ganster noted
that immigration and security services have different definitions as well. Mr. Belzer thought that only

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
areas that have an effect on border security should be included in the definition. Dr. Ganster instructed the
GNEB members to use 100 kilometers as a guideline, but each workgroup could determine whether a
different definition made more sense. Dr. Pezzoli commented that the distance could be contextualized by
green infrastructure thinking in relation to watersheds.

Ms. Abram noted that technology can be integrated into all of the sections or included only as a part of
the infrastructure section. GNEB also needs to define the term "infrastructure." Dr. Ganster thought that
the workgroups could fine-tune this definition as they begin writing. Ms. Larocque commented that cyber
security technology could have a positive effect on the environment.

Dr. Pezzoli commented that the World Health Organization and World Organization for Animal Health
developed a "One Health Framework" that examines human and animal connections. Ms. Mather-Marcus
noted that DHS works with agriculture inspections and deals with human health in carrying out its
mission.

Dr. Ganster stated that the recommendations would be developed by each workgroup during the writing
of the report. A GNEB member noted the importance of having a DHS representative connecting the
workgroups with experts to help them grasp the issues. The Board members also need pertinent contact
information. Mr. Joyce explained that Ms. Hass will be responsible for coordinating expert consultation.
He will send the current GNEB roster to the meeting participants so that they have the necessary contact
information.

In response to a request from Dr. Eaton to obtain the PowerPoint presentations from the meeting,
Mr. Joyce explained that he would set up a system to share materials that does not violate Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) rules. He explained that the official timeline would be developed
during the next week, but the groups should aim to have their text to Ms. LeBaron for collating by the end
of April. Dr. Ganster reported that, in terms of scheduling the mid-May teleconference, he would not be
available after May 13 for 3 weeks.

Dr. Pezzoli noted that the Board's last two reports contain helpful resources relating to infrastructure and
ecosystem services.

A GNEB member suggested that the report highlight case studies (community impacts and understanding,
economic benefits) within each challenge and opportunity section, including impacts on tribes and
Mexico.

Dr. Ganster will send the report outline to the GNEB members, who will provide comments using track
changes. Dr. Ganster will collate all of the comments and send the revised outline to the GNEB members.
Mr. Joyce instructed the workgroups to consider the schedule and frequency of meeting via
teleconference. FACMD can assist the workgroups in scheduling, sending invitations and providing call-
in numbers for their teleconferences.

Dr. Payne explained that the Board transmits the report to CEQ, which by the time of transmittal may not
exist in the form that it has in the past. GNEB must ensure that the report is targeted to the right
individuals so that the appropriate federal agencies can act on the recommendations. Mr. Joyce agreed
that the situation may evolve during the next several months, and GNEB may need to get reacquainted
with CEQ.

Ms. Mather-Marcus asked how the report is transmitted to Congress. Mr. Joyce responded that the
process has evolved overtime. EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations forwards
the report to the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate. GNEB members may send the

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
report to their representatives as citizens but may not represent the Board in doing so. Some members of
Congress consider the direct forwarding of reports by FACA committees to be lobbying. Therefore, the
Board cannot directly send the report to Congress, and GNEB members must act only as private citizens
if they choose to forward the reports to their specific representatives. Congressional briefings by FACA
committees also are considered lobbying.

Adjournment

Dr. Ganster recognized Mr. Joyce and EPA staff for ensuring that the meeting occurred despite the
current transition. Mr. Joyce thanked the DHS representatives for coordinating the outstanding
presentations, and the DOI and NOAA representatives for assisting. Dr. Ganster thanked the GNEB
members for their participation and adjourned the meeting at 11:31 a.m. PST.

Action Items

• Ms. Hass will make the source statistics about the port of entries available to the GNEB members.

• Dr. Ganster will provide text based on the data about the economic and environmental impacts of
border crossing waiting times that are available from SAND AG.

• Ms. Mather-Marcus will provide the current standing agreements regarding border emergency
response to Mr. Joyce so that he can forward them to the GNEB members.

• Ms. Mather-Marcus will develop a definition for the term "security" for Mr. Joyce to circulate among
the GNEB members.

• Mr. Joyce will send the current GNEB roster to the meeting participants.

• Dr. Ganster will send the report outline to the GNEB members, who will provide comments using
track changes. Dr. Ganster will collate all of the comments and send the revised outline to the GNEB
members.

• The next report will include the following sections:

o Retrospective and context (gap analysis),
o Border infrastructure, including:

¦ Ports of entry and border crossing wait times.

¦ Wastewater infrastructure.

¦ Fencing and access roads.

¦ Human health and border crossings/plant and animal health (topic may be moved later),
o Challenges and opportunities, including:

¦ Ecosystem services strategies.

¦ Emergency response and preparedness.

¦ Water management, trash control and sediment management,
o Recommendations.

• The following topics will be included in all sections of the report:
o Exemplary practices.

o Community understanding, will, and information regarding the bigger picture,
o Cross-border coordination,
o Invasive species (as appropriate).

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
o Incorporation of innovative technology.

• The topic of the food/water/energy nexus may be included in the report.

• Dr. Pohlman will lead the gap analysis effort; Dr. Eaton, Mr. Andrew, Ms. Grijalva, Ms. Mendoza,
Ms. Mather-Marcus and Ms. Hass will assist.

• Ms. Abram and Mr. Storment will lead the team focusing on border infrastructure; Mr. Belzer,
Dr. Zamora-Arroyo and Mr. Davis will serve on this team. Ms. Hillary Quam, U.S. Department of
State, who was not present at the meeting, also will serve on this team. A DHS representative should
be added to the team.

• Mr. Cruz will provide tribal examples for all of the relevant, specific challenges and opportunities.

• Ms. Lisa Schaub, EPA Region 6, will coordinate the section on challenges and opportunities.

• The following teams will focus on these specific challenges and opportunities:

o Ecosystem services strategies: Ms. LaRocque (lead), Mr. Salinas, Dr. Payne, Ms. Baldwin and
Mr. Andrew.

o Emergency response and preparedness: Dr. Eaton (lead), Ms. Quam (possible co-lead),
Ms. Mather-Marcus and Ms. Abram. Dr. Pohlman has a recommendation for a Federal
Emergency Management Agency representative to serve on this team.

o Water management, trash control and sediment management: Mr. Angel (co-lead), Dr. Zamora-
Arroyo (co-lead), Ms. Mendoza, Dr. Pezzoli and Dr. Payne. An IBWC representative also should
serve on this team.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Appendix A: Meeting Participants

Chair

Paul Ganster, Ph.D.

Director

Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias
San Diego State University
San Diego, California

Nonfederal, State, Local, and Tribal Members

Laura Abram

Director, Public Affairs

First Solar, Inc.

San Francisco, California

Jose Angel

Interim Executive Officer

State Water Resources Control Board

California Regional Water Quality Control

Board
Palm Desert, California

Lauren Baldwin, LEED-GA

Sustainability Program Specialist
City Manager's Department
Office of Resilience and Sustainability
City of El Paso
El Paso, Texas

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental and Natural Resources

Department
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
El Paso, Texas

Tom W. Davis

General Manager

Yuma County Water Users' Association
Yuma, Arizona

David J. Eaton, Ph.D.

Bess Harris Jones Centennial Professor
LB J School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas

Designated Federal Officer
Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division

Office of Administration and Resources

Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Lisa LaRocque

Sustainability Officer
Public Works Department
City of Las Cruces
Las Cruces, New Mexico

Edna A. Mendoza

Director

Office of Border Environmental Protection
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Tucson, Arizona

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, California

Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D.

Teaching Professor, Department of

Communication
Director, Urban Studies and Planning Program
University of California, San Diego
San Diego, California

Scott D. Storment

Principal

Green Hub Advisors, LLC
San Antonio, Texas

Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.

Director

Colorado River Delta Legacy Program
Sonoran Institute
Tucson, Arizona

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

19

-------
Federal Members

Department of Agriculture
Salvador Salinas

Texas State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Temple, Texas

Department of the Interior
Jonathan Andrew

Interagency Borderlands Coordinator
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.

Department of Commerce—National Oceanic

Department of Transportation
Sylvia Grijalva

U.S.-Mexico Border Planning Coordinator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Phoenix, Arizona

and Atmospheric Administration
Jeff Payne, Ph.D.

Director

Office for Coastal Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Department of Homeland Security
Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED, AP

Executive Director

Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Undersecretary for Management
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.

Federal Alternates

International Boundary and Water	Department of State

Commission	Beverly Mather-Marcus

Wayne Belzer	Energy and Environment Officer

Environmental Engineer	Office of Mexican Affairs

Environmental Management Division	U.S. Department of State

U.S. Section	Washington, D.C.

International Boundary and Water Commission
El Paso, Texas

Department of Homeland Security
Jennifer Hass, J.D.

Environmental Planning and Historic

Preservation Program Manager
Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.

20

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office Participants

Region 3

Jose Redmond

Region 3

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Region 6

Jeanne Eckhart

Environmental Scientist
Region 6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas

Lisa Schaub

Region 6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas

Other Participants

John Armijo

Assistant Director

San Diego Office of Field Operations
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
San Diego, California

Dan Beckham

Planner

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.

William Bresnick

Attorney Advisor in Environmental Law
Office of the General Counsel
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.

Region 9

Hector Aguirre

Director

San Diego Border Liaison Office
Region 9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego, California

Jeremy Bauer

Regional Coordinator

San Diego Border Liaison Office

Region 9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego, California

Jessica Helgesen

Regional Coordinator

San Diego Border Liaison Office

Region 9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego, California

Lorena Lopez-Powers

Regional Coordinator

San Diego Border Liaison Office

Region 9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego, California

Brian Collins

Refuge Manager

Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Imperial Beach, California

Victor Corzo

Legal Affairs and Consular Assistance

Department
Consulate General of Mexico
San Diego, California

Amber Craig

U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
San Diego, California

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

21

-------
Serge Dedina

Mayor

City of Imperial Beach
Imperial Beach, California

Michael Doolittle

U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
San Diego, California

Paul Enriquez

Chief

Environmental Branch
Office of Facilities and Asset Management
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
Orange County, California

Laura Goodspeed

Contractor

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
Medway, Massachusetts

Samantha Lamont

Contractor

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
Fort Walton Beach, Florida

Contractor Support

Kristen LeBaron

Senior Science Writer/Editor
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Gaithersburg, Maryland

James Nielsen

Supervisory Border Patrol Agent
U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
San Diego, California

Richard Smith

U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
San Diego, California

Becky Smyth

Office for Coastal Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Oakland, California

Paloma Torres

Consulate General of Mexico
San Diego, California

Andy Yuen

Project Leader

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
San Diego, California

22

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Appendix B: Meeting Agenda

IgjG NEB

^	J Environmental Advisors Across Borders

Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Marriott Pier South, 800 Seacoast Drive, Imperial Beach, California

February 9 - 10, 2017

AGENDA

Meeting Day 1

Registration

Welcome, Introductions and Overview of Agenda

•	Mark Joyce, Acting Designated Federal Officer, EPA

•	Paul Ganster, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board

•	Honorable Serge Dedina, Mayor of Imperial Beach

•	Board Introductions

9:30-10:30 a.m.	Federal Perspectives on Environmental Conditions Along the U.S-Mexico

Border—Federally Managed Trust Resources

•	Jon Andrew, Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, DOI

Overview of Federal Lands and Border Conditions

•	Andy Yuen, Project Leader, FWS

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex

•	Jeff Payne, Director, Office for Coastal Management, NOAA

Tijuana River National Estnarine Research Reserve

•	Q&A and Discussion (15 minutes)

10:30-10:45 a.m. Break

Thursday. February 9
8:30 a.m.

9:00-9:30 a.m.

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

23

-------
10:45 a.m -12:00 p.m. Illegal Cross-Border Activity and the Environmental Impacts

•	James Nielsen, Supervisory Border Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS

Overview of Border Security Profile

•	Paul Enriquez, Chief, Environmental Branch, Office of Facilities and
Asset Management, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS

Positive and Negative Environmental Impacts of Border Security

•	Jon Andrew, Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, DOI

Successfully Balancing Management of Border Security Infrastructure and
the Mission of the Department of the Interior

•	John Armijo, Assistant Director, San Diego Office of Field Operations,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS

Security Inspections at Commercial and Non-Commercial Ports of Entry

•	Q&A and Discussion (15 minutes)

12:00-12:15 p.m. Public Comments

12:15 p.m.	Depart for Working Lunch at the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research

Reserve Visitors Center

12:30-2:15 p.m.	Overview of the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge and the Tijuana River

National Estuarine Research Reserve

•	Brian Collins, Refuge Manager, FWS
Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge

•	Jeff Crooks, NOAA

Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve

2:15p.m.	Return to Hotel

2:30-4:00 p.m.	Discussion of the 18th Report to the President and Congress on Environment,

Security and Prosperity in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

4:00-4:15 p.m.	Break

4:15-5:30 p.m.	Continuation of Discussion of the 18th Report

5:30 p.m.	Recess

24

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------
Meeting Day 2

Friday. February 10
8:00 a.m.

8:30-9:30 a.m.
9:30-9:45 a.m.
9:45-11:30 a.m.
11:30-11:45 a.m.
11:45 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.

Registration

Discussion of Next Meetings and Other Business
Public Comments

Continued Work on Development of the 18th Report
Break

Continued Work on Development of the 18th Report
Adjournment

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

25

-------
Appendix C: Chair Certification of Minutes

I, Paul Ganster, Chair of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB), certify that this is the final
version of the complete minutes for the face-to-face meeting held February 9-10, 2017, and that the
minutes accurately reflect the discussions and decisions of the meeting.

March 2. 2017

Paul Ganster, GNEB Chair	Date

26

February 9-10, 2017 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

-------