QNAC
Environment and Trade Working Together
§ GAC
k ' " -* Advisors for a Sustainable Future
OFFICIAL MEETING OF THE
NATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
(NAC/GAC)
SUMMARY
FINAL
September 14 - 15, 2017
William Jefferson Clinton South
EPA Conference Room 2138
1200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
and Via Adobe® Connect Teleconference
Note: The U.S. National and Governmental Advisory Committees are federal advisory
committees chartered by Congress, operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
5 U.S.C., App. 2. The committees provide advice to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on the implementation of the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation. The findings and or recommendations of the committees do not
represent the views of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved
or disseminated by EPA.
-------
Table of Contents
Call to Order and Introductions 1
Welcome 1
Overview of the Agenda 1
Update on U. S. Priorities and Guidance, and Tribal Update 1
Working Session I: Brainstorming on Engaging States, Tribal Nations and the Private Sector 4
Public Comment Period 7
CEC Update on Operational Plan and NAPECA Grants 7
Update on SEM and Status of Submissions 9
JPAC Report 10
Working Session II: Discussion on Activities and Best Practices 11
Summary and Next Steps 11
Call to Order 12
Plenary: Joint Committee Meeting 12
Public Comment Period 13
Committees Meet Separately 13
Committees Reconvene in Plenary Session 17
Adjournment 19
Action Items 19
Summary Certification 20
Appendix A: Meeting Participants 21
Appendix B: Meeting Agenda 23
Appendix C: Charge Letter for September 14-15, 2017 NAC/GAC Meeting 26
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary ii
-------
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Call to Order and Introductions
Oscar Carrillo, National and Governmental Advisory Committees (NAC/GAC) Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), Federal Advisory Committee Management Division (FACMD), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
Mr. Oscar Carrillo, NAC/GAC DFO, FACMD, EPA, called the meeting to order and welcomed
participants to the 49th meeting of the NAC and GAC committees. Mr. Carrillo asked the meeting
participants to introduce themselves. He then introduced Ms. Monisha Harris, Director, FACMD, to
update the committees on FACMD activities.
Welcome
Monisha Harris, Director, FACMD
Ms. Harris welcomed the NAC/GAC and other attendees. The Office of Administration and Resource
Management (OARM) and FACMD support all of the Agency's federal advisory committees, including
the NAC and the GAC, which provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator, Congress
and the President on environmental issues. In engaging with the Agency's partners and stakeholders, the
NAC and the GAC play an important role in helping EPA to achieve its mission to protect human health
and the environment. She welcomed Ms. Jane Nishida, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
International and Tribal Affairs (OITA), and Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Council
U.S. Alternative Representative (Alt Rep), to the meeting. Ms. Harris expressed appreciation to the
committees for the hours of dedication and work that they perform in advising the CEC and EPA
Administrator. She then invited Dr. Theresa Pardo (University of Albany, State University of New York),
Chair of the NAC, and Mr. Jeffrey Wennberg (City of Rutland, Vermont), Chair of the GAC, to provide
an overview of the agenda.
Overview of the Agenda
Jeffrey Wennberg, Chair of the GAC
Theresa Pardo, Ph.D., Chair of the NAC
Mr. Wennberg thanked the members for attending and for responding to the Chairs' request to identify
examples of exemplary green growth projects prior to the meeting. Continuing with the new agenda
model adopted at the March 2017 meeting, committees will brainstorm in three interactive sessions
during the meeting. He articulated concerns for those in the path of recent hurricanes and threatening
living conditions.
Dr. Pardo welcomed the committee members and thanked them for attending the meeting. She joined
Mr. Wennberg in focusing attention to the families affected by the storms and foreseeing timely recovery
efforts.
Update on U.S. Priorities and Guidance, and Tribal Update
Jane Nishida, Acting Assistant Administrator, OITA
Ms. Nishida updated the members on the June 27-28, 2017 CEC Council Session; the advice letter charge
and planning for the 2018 Council Session; and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
and budget negotiations. She conveyed EPA's highest concern for those in the aftermath of recent and
prior natural disasters, which are affecting the quality of life for many living in EPA regions and
throughout the country. Ms. Nishida expressed appreciation to Ms. Harris, Mr. Carrillo, the FACMD staff
and OITA staff for their continued support. The well-organized brainstorming sessions on the CEC
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
1
-------
projects provided valuable advice for informing the 2017-2018 CEC Operational Plan (OP) for which the
EPA is grateful to the NAC/GAC Chairs and members for their service. She was joined by Ms. Felecia
Wright, Acting Director, American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO), OITA, who provided an update
on tribal affairs.
Canada and the Canadian Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, hosted the
2017 CEC Council Session on June 27-28, 2017, in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Neither EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt nor Rafael Pacchiano Alaman, Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources for Mexico could attend the Council Session; Alt Reps Ms. Nishida and Enrique
Lendo Fuentes represented the United States and Mexico, respectively. The Council activities included
approving the 2017-2018 CEC OP, committing to a 1-year cycle of North American Partnership for
Environmental Community Action (NAPECA) grants, updating the Terms of Operation for the Roster of
Experts on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and announcing winners of the 2017 CEC Youth
Innovation Challenge (Challenge).
The 2017-2018 CEC OP consists of 10 active projects, including monitoring health effects of extreme
heat events, reducing pollution from maritime transport and supporting conservation initiatives.
Ms. Nishida highlighted two examples of how the NAC/GAC's advice has been influential in shaping the
OP projects: The committees' advice to expand the focus of maritime transport to include ship emissions
in ports was incorporated into the project, as was the recommendation to provide educational outreach
(e.g., aquarium visits) on marine litter. She indicated that approval of the North American TEK
Atlas/Inventory project is pending. The Parties (i.e., Government of Canada, the Government of the
United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America) are carefully reviewing the
project's design and are working with the TEK Roster of Experts (TEK Roster) and other federal agencies
to finalize changes. The Council also approved funding for the 2017-2018 cycle of NAPECA grants.
Mr. Cesar Rafael Chavez, Secretariat, CEC, will update the committees on the 2017-2018 OP and
NAPECA grants later in the meeting. Upon the TEK Roster's request, the Council revised the TEK
Roster terms of operation. These revisions are expected to strengthen the interactions of the TEK Roster
with the Council, provide greater opportunity for discussions on how CEC policy operates to incorporate
TEK and continue its engagement with the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC).
In 2017 the CEC initiated a trinational Youth Innovation Challenge in which youth ages 18 to 26
developed innovative concepts aimed at addressing environmental issues regarding sustainable growth
and the CEC agenda and presented these concepts at the Council Session. Three winning projects were
selected: (1) "Small-Scale Waste to Energy" from Canada; (2) "ROCAPET: Sustainable Structural
Concrete" from Mexico; and (3) "Restaurant Waste to Superfood Powder" from the United States.
Members were informed that the United States assumed the CEC Council Chair for 2018 and will host the
2018 Council Session in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Ms. Nishida reiterated how valuable advice from the
committees has shaped the U.S. positions with Canada and Mexico, as well as informed EPA of
opportunities to strengthen these partnerships. Over the course of the 48 NAC and GAC meetings, EPA
has been allowed to engage with a diverse set of partners in academia, the business sector, local and tribal
governments, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). EPA anticipates that the 2018 Council
Session will further strengthen these collaborations, as well as those at the state, tribal and private-sector
levels. A theme being considered for the 2018 Council Session is Innovation in Partnership for Green
Growth. The NAC/GAC have been charged to provide advice on how the Council could engage states,
tribal nations, and the private sector in North America to share their experiences in advancing green
growth, showcase initiatives and best practices, and identify those that align with the CEC 2017-2018 OP
priorities, which could be highlighted at the 2018 Council Session. The objective is to highlight what
others are doing regarding green growth. In addition, the CEC is requesting advice on engaging youth for
launching a second Challenge that would align with the CEC agenda.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
2
-------
Ms. Nishida informed members that NAFTA negotiations in the United States were officially announced
in May 2017. A first round of talks was completed in August 2017, the second round in September 2017,
and subsequent rounds are to follow. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative represents the United
States in the negotiations and EPA is a participant in matters pertaining to relevant environmental issues.
The U.S.-Mexico negotiations schedule is ambitious, and negotiators are hoping to conclude by the end
of 2017. Side agreements, such as the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
(NAAEC), are being discussed, but the outcomes have not been revealed. The Parties will continue to
work under the current NAAEC agreement and CEC structure. She informed members that EPA is
operating under a continuing resolution that funds the government, including the CEC, through December
8, 2017. The fiscal year 2018 budget process is in progress.
Ms. Wright updated members on the Tribal Program and new priorities. The new Administration has
expressed an intent to focus on operational cooperative excellence. Internally, the AIEO is working to
balance tribal engagement, consultation and cooperation with implementation of EPA programs to build
tribal capacity on the governmental and community levels to address their environmental concerns and
priorities. The 1984 Indian Policy, EPA Policy of Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, has
laid the foundation for AIEO's work and is continuing to set the stage for tribal relations. For example, on
October 11, 2017, Administrator Pruitt will convene a Tribal Caucus with members of the National Tribal
Caucus to discuss engagement, EPA policy and program implementation. The AIEO remains involved in
tribal affairs across the EPA Regions assisting in environmental protection decision making, promoting
community engagement, ensuring consistency across the country, and ensuring alignment with EPA
environmental policies. Other efforts that the AIEO is engaged in include improving operational
excellence and capacity building of the General Assistance Program grants and reviewing strategies for
better engaging Tribes in coordination and outreach as well as consultation.
Ms. Wright pointed out that the Tribal ecoAmbassadors Program, a partnership with professors at Tribal
Colleges and Universities that focused on empowering students to work with their professors and EPA
scientists to solve environmental problems unique to their communities, will end in the spring of 2018.
The program has included projects on campus composting, expressions through art designs of rain
gardens and climate change initiatives. The Local Environmental Observer Network established under the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the EPA Urban Waters Program are examples of partnership
and innovation on health and the environment initiatives that the AIEO is hoping to continue; the AIEO
will seek to engage Tribes in further developing these programs.
Question and Answer Period
Mr. Donald K. Harris (Amerris Consulting, LLC), NAC member, observed that the U.S. Government
may no longer consider the NAAEC as a side agreement, but as a component of NAFTA. Ms. Nishida
explained that NAFTA negotiations are ongoing, and the U.S. position has not been formalized on
environmental repositioning or any other related issues.
Ms. Mary L. Klein (NatureServe), NAC member, sought clarity on including ideas on youth engagement
in the advice letter. Luis Troche, Senior Advisor, North American Program, OITA, clarified that the
clearance to launch a CEC Youth Innovation Challenge for the 2018 Council Session occurred after the
EPA charge letter was issued. He explained that EPA is soliciting ideas on foundations and other
organizations that would be interested in sponsoring and financially supporting the challenge. These ideas
can be submitted separately from the advice letter.
Ms. Sally Ann Gonzales (Arizona House of Representatives), GAC member, asked about efforts to expand
EPA environmental programs to the Southwestern regions of the United States. Ms. Wright explained that
the budget for fiscal year 2018 will decide EPA's ability to commit to expanding resources. The White
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
3
-------
House Council on Native American Affairs has been effective in broadly determining the best use of
resources available to tribal communities and will continue those efforts with this Administration.
Mr. Andrew P. Carey (U.S.-Mexico Border Philanthropy Partnership [BPP]), NAC member, noted the
interest of union-based foundations in the Western United States to co-invest with EPA or other
governmental agencies to address significant needs; they could assist in providing some necessary
resources for Tribes. He will share contact information for interested investors with EPA. Ms. Nishida
lauded the potential for innovative collaborations in the Western states and noted the 26 tribal nations
along the U.S.-Mexico border that would benefit.
Ms. Carolyn L. Green (EnerGreen Capital Management), NAC member, asked about the Agency's
discussions with Canada and Mexico on cross-border issues and ways that the NAC/GAC could be of
assistance. Ms. Nishida called attention to an example of the EPA efforts in Region 10 to work with tribal
nations on the West Coast to share information on water quality standards and on the East Coast with the
Maliseet First Nations in Canada regarding the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada. Information
on such transboundary collaborations can be shared with the committees for input.
Working Session I: Brainstorming on Engaging States, Tribal Nations and the
Private Sector
Jeffrey Wennberg, Chair of the GAC
Theresa Pardo, Ph.D., Chair of the NAC
Dr. Pardo read the charge for the meeting and explained that in the first hour the committees will focus on
identifying ways to engage states, tribal nations and the private sector in green growth initiatives;
discussing the green growth projects submitted by members prior to the meeting, broadly defining the
scoring criteria and exemplary practices; and beginning the process of selecting from those projects
models that will be showcased during the 2018 CEC Council Session. The remainder of the time will be
spent on discussing ideas, a vision and partnerships for a 2018 CEC Youth Innovation Challenge.
The committees discussed how the Council could engage states, tribal nations and the private sector in
North America to share their experiences advancing green growth, North American trade and
environmental protection. Mr. Carlos Perez (Galica, LLC), NAC member, wondered if it would be of
value to narrow the field by first identifying specific U.S. states and/or tribal nations to engage in green
growth initiatives relative to the charge questions. Mr. Harris pointed out that those details would likely
emerge during the Working Session discussions, and Dr. Pardo added that the charge is addressing how to
engage in green growth initiatives, rather than whom to engage. Ms. Green suggested identifying the
criteria to evaluate the projects before selecting the best models.
The committees discussed the concept of best practices and/or exemplary practices. Mr. Perez defined
"best practice" as a gold standard and "exemplary practice" as an example specific to the end user.
Ms. Green pointed out that an exemplary practice was not necessarily a best practice, but a subset.
Dr. Ivonne Santiago (The University of Texas at El Paso), NAC member, shared her experience with
management best practices as successful guidelines that could be broadly implemented; exemplary
practices are practices not everyone can achieve. Ms. Klein stated that best practices in general are
standards that can readily be obtained and are accepted. Efforts on green growth initiatives are
experimental in focus and are unique to the organization rather standard-setting for the field.
Dr. Pardo asked for ideas on the criteria for selecting exemplary projects. Ms. Klein stated that she
selected projects for review at today's meeting that demonstrated forward-moving leadership to enable
sustainable growth and inclusiveness in community mobilization. Ms. Suzanne E. Hanson (Minnesota
Pollution Control Board), GAC member, noted the role of measurable results, and Ms. Martha Bohrt (City
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
4
-------
of Norfolk), GAC member, emphasized clear communication of benefits to the community as a necessary
criterion. Dr. Vincent R. Nathan (San Antonio Metropolitan Health District), GAC member, cited energy
sector-led green growth projects in the state of Texas and indicated a bottoms-up community engagement
approach as a driver and good method to foster these types of projects. Ms. Ana Maria Cristina Viesca-
Santos, GAC member, suggested that projects that successfully meet objectives are exemplary projects.
Mr. Kelly C. Wright (Fort Hall Indian Reservation), GAC member, offered that community engagement, at
a minimum, and other components that meet or exceed the best practices of a rubric or other standards of
measures of performance should be included. Ms. Gonzales echoed Mr. Wright that a record of proven best
practices would be necessary criteria.
Mr. Tracy Hester (University of Houston Law Center), NAC member, suggested that a project should be
self-sustaining and balanced with exemplary practices. Dr. Santiago proposed three indicators of success:
(1) poverty reduction, (2) employment generation, and (3) sustainable economy. Mr. David Antonioli
(Verified Carbon Standard), NAC member, specified financial sustainability as a criterion, and Mr. Carey
added ease of replication or emulation to the list. From an industry perspective, Mr. Harris noted that
projects should be applicable, capable of being incremented, and either net neutral or positively affecting
the community. Ms. Simone Sagovac (Southwest Detroit Community Benefits), NAC member, suggested
that projects demonstrate multisector and multistakeholder engagement, as well as sustainable local
ownership. Dr. Donna L. Lybecker (Idaho State University), NAC member, pointed out the need for
projects to address the full life cycle, from product to market to buyers. Mr. Perez noted up-and-down
scalability features, and Ms. Green highlighted affordability. Mr. Justin Robert McCartney (Georgetown
University), NAC member, suggested engaging stakeholders at all levels and discouraging siloing (i.e.,
break down silos) on environmental motivations for engaging green growth at early stages of design.
Dr. Aminata Kilungo (The University of Arizona), NAC member, proposed that projects that clearly
demonstrate technology transferability to youth and the local community in addition to scalability and
sustainability would be exemplary. Dr. Nathan agreed that engaging youth in technology transfer
initiatives could increase the probability of uptake and early adoption and also could foster patent
development, which has been declining since 2011. Mr. Wennberg pointed out the need for project
developers to solicit a political constituency within the community who share the same goals and visions
for green growth that extends beyond elected officials, terms of office or company leadership.
Members also highlighted the following key points:
• Adaptability is horizontal relative to scalability, which is vertical.
• Objectives should be clearly defined.
• Efforts to raise social awareness are at the center.
• Initiatives must be good for the environment.
Mr. Troche explained that ideas on policy, technology and any actions that could advance green growth
initiatives also would be helpful.
Dr. Pardo led a discussion of potential projects and model systems. Mr. Carey pointed out that green
growth originated with the CEC and suggested that the committees request a list of successful projects
that already meet a set of criteria, which will be helpful to the decision-making process. Dr. Kilungo
suggested engaging experts in green growth initiatives to provide guidance in evaluating the projects. She
will share website links with the members, as well as contact information for sources.
Ms. Klein presented on exemplary case studies for green growth, which were compiled from a survey of
U.S. Parks National Heritage Program participants who reported green growth activities in their regions.
She highlighted several activities that feature leadership, innovation and implementation components:
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
5
-------
• The 50 Certified Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating (STAR) Communities
• The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Pollinator Projects
• The Colorado Wetlands Restoration in Sagebrush Habitat/Sage Grouse Initiative
• The Michigan Interstate-7'5 Conservation Corridor Plan
• Omaha, Nebraska, Public Schools Green Schools Initiative
Dr. Santiago asked Ms. Klein about the potential for entrepreneurship opportunities with the projects. She
explained that the NCWRC pollinator initiatives, which are full life-cycle projects, and the wetlands
restoration project, which is establishing a small industry of consultants, provide the best entrepreneurial
opportunities.
Mr. Harris described environmental initiatives in automotive manufacturing facilities, which are broadly
categorized as those involving growth, energy or water. Current green growth strategies being
implemented include zero-waste programs or landfill-free facilities aimed to reduce carbon emissions at
major manufacturers; rainwater collection projects in Puebla, Mexico; green energy supply chain;
implementation of ISO 500001 and newer energy management standards; and wildlife habitat
certifications.
Ms. Green reported on the Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC), an example of a grassroots organizational
structure. The ECC focuses on advancing a sustainable environment while creating the surest sustainable,
just and inclusive economies. This network of organizations provides opportunities for training, sharing
of best practices and cross-pollination of ideas in a holistic approach. She also offered the efforts in the
city of Philadelphia regarding the Schuylkill River and its tributaries to reduce runoff and pollution as a
model to emulate.
Dr. Lybecker provided examples of green growth projects being conducted at colleges and universities.
The Colorado State University composting program is an example of a full life-cycle project, which began
with one cafeteria, a few students and an onsite composting facility. The project later scaled up to campus-
wide activities engaging the local farmers and pulpers in waste reduction and delivery of excess food to the
County Food Bank. The Idaho State University Sustainability Program was started as a composting
activity, but not enough planning was given to identify usable outlets. It is growing slowing.
Mr. Wennberg reported on exemplary green growth initiatives. The Catawba County, North Carolina,
EcoComplex and Blackburn Resource Recovery Facility, which contains a university integration
component and an Immigrant Agriculture Program, is uniquely focused on making and using green energy.
The EcoComplex has received many prestigious awards, including the 2008 National Association of
Counties Achievement Award. An example of a local government initiative is the Green Enterprise Zone
established by the city of Wilmington, Ohio, in which financial incentives are provided to businesses that
meet the criteria and provide jobs in the community. An international, as well as subnational, model of
economic development, job growth and trade is the long-standing and successful New England Governors
and Eastern Canadian Premiers Initiative on climate change.
Dr. Pardo pointed out that the National League of Cities has mechanisms to evaluate green growth-related
projects based on a set of best practices. The EPA charge letter was shared with representatives and a
response is expected soon. She remarked that the committees could consider aggregating the best programs
and initiatives into lists stratified by successful performances to begin structuring the recommendations.
The committees discussed the CEC 2018 Youth Innovation Challenge. Mr. Troche explained that the CEC
is planning to launch a 2018 Youth Innovation Challenge in December 2017, which will lead into the 2018
Council Session. An approach similar to that of 2017 will be used: Young adults (ages 18-26) in Canada,
Mexico and the United States will be asked to submit replicable, scalable and innovative science ideas for
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
6
-------
addressing environmental challenges in the three countries. Winners will be invited to present their ideas at
the Council Session and receive a prize of $5,000 or more to advance their projects. For 2018, the CEC is
seeking to improve on the prior efforts, and EPA is asking the NAC/GAC to propose ideas for marketing
and increasing awareness about the Youth Challenge and to identify partners willing to support the
Challenge.
Ms. Klein commented that requesting foundations to contribute up to $15,000 to support a youth initiative
is feasible, but the challenge will lie in finding organizations that focus on these types of projects. The CEC
could consider announcing focus-driven competitions (e.g., marine litter), rather than an open competition
at the launch. Some foundations, such as the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, broadly support a range of
initiatives, but others are more specific in scope. Mr. Troche explained that the details for the Challenge are
being developed and will align with the CEC agenda. EPA welcomes ideas on defining the 2018
Challenge.
Dr. Pardo suggested offering direct consultation from experts as a component of the prize to assist winners
in further developing their projects. Mr. McCartney echoed Dr. Pardo that expert consultation would be
useful and offered to use his resources at Georgetown University to help with communicating and
marketing the Challenge in his networks. Mr. Troche acknowledged the value in increasing awareness at
universities and emphasized that the Challenge is open to youth in all arenas. Ms. Gonzales offered to help
disseminate information about the Challenge to Tribes in Arizona.
Ms. Green pointed out that technology companies, such as Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corporation, currently
sponsor innovative competitions and would be companies to engage in the CEC Challenge. Ms. Sagovac
suggested engaging universities and foundations focused on public health initiatives to support with
matching funds.
Dr. Kilungo asked about the representation of indigenous people in the 2017 CEC Challenge. Mr. Troche
explained that the CEC and EPA reached out to the Tribal ecoAmbassador Program and that network, but
he would have to verify the level of participation. The goal is to broadly disseminate information about the
Challenge to the indigenous communities. Dr. Kilungo suggested partnering with Neighborhood
Associations to expand the reach to the indigenous communities.
Dr. Santiago noted that resources at the federally funded Innovation Center at the University of Texas at
El Paso could be leveraged to establish a mentoring network and business development for the CEC
Challenge participants. Mr. Troche stated that one goal is to invite successful entrepreneurs to the Council
Session to serve as role models and mentors to support the Challenge winners.
Mr. Hester suggested inviting to the Council Session outside investors who could adopt the Challenge
ideas and help the youth further develop their projects.
Public Comment Period
No public comments were offered.
CEC Update on Operational Plan and NAPECA Grants
Cesar Rafael Chavez, Executive Director, CEC Secretariat
Mr. Cesar Chavez updated members on the activities of the CEC, its 2017-2018 OP and future directions.
He began by reporting on the conclusion of the 2015-2016 OP projects. Members viewed a short video
highlighting the accomplishments of the 2015-2016 OP projects. The results achieved in each project
have contributed to meeting the objectives of the 2015-2020 CEC Strategic Plan. Success was monitored
and evaluated based on clear performance measures established at the start of the 2015-2016 cycle.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
7
-------
Fourteen of the 16 projects were completed on time. Two projects, Greening of Chemicals Management
in North America and North American Initiative on Organic Waste Diversion and Processing, were
delayed and are extended to the fall 2017. Project deliverables included 39 publications and presentations
at scientific conferences.
Mr. Chavez detailed the 10 new, active 2017-2018 OP cooperative projects approved at the 2017 Council
Session:
• Monitoring Health Impacts From Extreme Heat Events
• Reducing Pollution From Maritime Transport
• Improving Black Carbon Emissions Inventory Data for Small-Scale Biomass Combustion
• Measuring Mitigation of Food Loss and Food Waste
• Increasing Industrial Energy Efficiency Through ISO 500001
• Supporting Sustainable Trade of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species) Species
• Conserving Shorebirds Through Community Engagement
• Science for Monarch Butterfly and Pollinator Conservation
• Strengthening Adaptive Capacity of Marine Protected Areas
• Building Community Solutions for Marine Litter
The CEC is engaged in developing partnerships and collaborations; planning meetings, workshops and
trainings; addressing data collection and programmatic issues; and developing terms of reference for the
new projects. In addition, developing funding strategies, identifying priority actions for implementation
and establishing advisory groups are being addressed. Detailed descriptions of the projects are provided in
the 2017-2018 OP, which is accessible on the CEC website.
Mr. Chavez reported on ongoing initiatives at the CEC. Experts are finalizing the new continental land
coverage map at a 30-meter resolution for the North American Land Change Monitoring System. The
North American Environmental Atlas continues to expand with new map layers and functionalities.
Efforts are in progress to finalize, in the North American Pollutant Releases and Transfers (PRTR)
initiative, the next edition of the Taking Stock Report to focus on reporting from the mining industry in
North America. In addition, the database for the North American Portal on Climate Pollutants is being
updated with the most recent data submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate
Change.
Mr. Chavez updated the committees on the CEC's community grants program. The NAPECA grants,
which started in June 2011, are designed to help communities improve their health and local environment
and build partnerships on the community level. To date, the CEC has funded 57 community-based
projects and has awarded a total of $3.9 million. Thirteen community projects originated in the United
States and accounted for $1.3 million of the total awards. Projects from the 2015-2016 funding cycle are
being completed. The CEC approved the 2017-2018 grant cycle and participants will have until
September 22, 2017, to submit applications. Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by a CEC
Selection Committee. Final decisions will be announced in November 2017.
Question and Answer Period
Mr. Antonioli sought clarity on the number of 2015-2016 OP cooperative projects that have been
completed. Mr. Chavez clarified that two projects are expected to be completed by October 2018; the
Council authorized their extension.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
8
-------
In response to a query from Mr. Wright on the number of applications for the 2017-2017 cycle,
Mr. Chavez explained that 42-45 applications have been received to date, but in the past most
applications have been received during the last week of the submission period.
Mr. Harris asked how the extreme heat events project aligned with the CEC agenda and how the
NAPECA grants were being publicized. Mr. Chavez stated that the project addressing extreme heat events
was first proposed in the 2015-2016 OP cycle and was based on prior evidence. Pilots were conducted in
three communities not necessarily prone to extreme heat: Ottawa, Ontario; Detroit, Michigan; and
Hermosillo, Sonora. To publicize the community grants, the CEC has relied partly on partners to increase
awareness, as well as on internal communications. Electronic and paper applications are accepted to
ensure equal access to applicants. Mr. Troche added that details on the NAPECA grants are publicized on
EPA's website, broadly disseminated Agency-wide and shared with international coordinators and
networks.
Dr. Santiago asked about the evaluation process for the selection of NAPECA projects. Mr. Chavez
explained that proposals are first evaluated using a 12-point requirements checklist. Acceptable
applications are screened against the selection criteria, and those retained after the first round advance to a
second round. Each project undergoes three independent reviews, and those scoring highest advance to
the next stage. A Selection Committee composed of one General Standing Committee representative from
each country, the JPAC Chair and the CEC Executive Director will approve or decline each application,
and the final set of projects is forwarded to the Council for approval.
Update on SEM and Status of Submissions
Robert Moyer, Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters (SEM), CEC
Mr. Robert Moyer reported on the CEC SEM impacts research project, which provided an in-depth
review of submissions, the types of environmental laws being addressed, processing times, factual records
and the impact of submissions and factual records. Members viewed the 2-minute video explaining the
SEM process ("https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=bdWH95OzoeY). which was developed by the SEM
unit. A total of 89 submissions have been filed before the Secretariat since 1994: 31 from Canada, 46
from Mexico and 12 from the United States. A review of submissions from 1994 to 2015 in 5- and 10-
year increments shows a decrease in submissions, which is more prominent in the recent years. The
greatest number of overall submissions, as well as the greatest number of U.S. submissions, occurred
from 1994 to 2000. Mexico had more submissions than both Canada and the United States. Sixty-two
percent of submissions were initiated by NGOs, 19 percent by individuals and 19 percent could be
attributed to a combination of NGO and individuals. The three localities with the number of submitters by
State, Territory, or Province were Ontario, Canada; Jalisco, Mexico; and New York, United States.
Mr. Moyer called attention to a Google Earth mapping tool being developed by the CEC—Spotted Owl—
which will enable submissions tracking geographically.
The environmental laws being addressed in submissions as determined using word clouds (i.e., weighted
lists) revealed that in Mexico, the most common issues are related to the general environmental law, Ley
General del Equilibrio Ecologico y la Proteccion al Ambiente (i.e., General Law of Ecological
Equilibrium and Environmental Protection). In Canada, the most referenced law in submissions is the
Fisheries Act, and in the United States, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are the
most referenced.
The average time for the Secretariat to process a submission greatly improved from 2001 to 2005, but
then became increasingly longer until new CEC guidelines became effective in 2012 and deadline goals
for the Secretariat and the Council were established. Mr. Moyer remarked that the most recent
submission, Alberta Tailings Ponds II, was processed in 36 days. Also, the number of days until an
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
9
-------
NAAEC Article 15 Council vote dropped precipitously in 2012 and aligned with the revised submission
guidelines and goals.
Regarding factual records, of the 29 submissions submitted for a Council vote, 22 received positive votes
and were published, including Sumidero Canyon in 2015 and the Wetlands in Manzanillo in 2016. A 23rd
factual record on Agricultural Burning in Sonora was authorized by the Council in June 2017 and is in
preparation. The Council has, at times, voted for a factual record whose scope was more restrictive than
what the Secretariat recommended. This could be due to environmental laws restrictions, pending
proceedings or other specific situations (e.g., at risk species).
Mr. Moyer highlighted the general feedback regarding the positive effects of submissions and factual
records on environmental issues:
• Transparency and information sharing help bring the facts to view.
• Public participation enhances government performance and accountability.
• An international remedy democratizes international environmental law.
• A submission can be used to strongly encourage a Party to act.
Specific positive effects have been seen in Canada, Mexico and the United States. The CEC is
encouraging submitters to track and follow up actions taken following submissions or publishing of
factual records.
Question and Answer Period
In response to a query from Dr. Santiago on differences in submissions timeliness, Mr. Moyer explained
that obtaining the necessary information to address a submission could be timely, but was not aware of
any differences specific to a country or region.
Ms. Klein asked whether the Council's negative votes could be attributed to the revised submissions
guidelines or goals. Mr. Moyer could not speak to the correlation of negative votes and timeliness, but
speculated that the nature of the submission may have affected the Council's vote.
Dr. Pardo asked about the impact of the negative votes on the submissions and whether a shift in the
Council's perspective could account for this voting trend. She suggested that providing explanations on
the rationale for Council's decisions could help improve the quality of submissions. Mr. Moyer noted
examples of NGO's in Canada in which the Council's decision may have impacted submissions and
pointed out that the CEC is receiving new submissions from Canada, which maybe reflective of changing
mechanisms or governmental conditions. He called attention to Executive Orders issued during the
William J. Clinton Administration, which established policies for voting on factual records.
Mr. Wennberg asked about the unanimous decisions verses a 2:1 vote on factual records. Mr. Moyer
explained that the Council votes are primarily 2:1 decisions and that a unanimous vote clears the record
for approval.
JPAC Report
Robert W. Varney, Chair, JPAC
Mr. Chavez presented an update on JPAC activities on behalf of Mr. Robert W. Varney, JPAC Chair,
who was unable to attend the meeting and sent his regrets. The JPAC submitted advice letters to the
Council in 2017 based on outputs from three JPAC public forums: the November 2016 meeting titled
"Advancing Sustainable Clean Energy Cooperation in North America," held in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
the March 2017 meeting titled "Reducing and Managing Food and Organic Waste Streams: Challenges
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
10
-------
and Opportunities in North America," held in Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas, Mexico; and the June 2017
meeting titled "Increasing Resilience Through Cooperation: Empowering Coastal, Shoreline, and
Riverbank Communities in North America," held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Council responses on these advice letters are pending.
The JPAC received a response from the Council regarding its advice letter on Biodiversity and Climate
Change based on the September 2016 meeting that was held in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. The November
2017 JPAC session will be held in Chicago, Illinois, United States, and will be devoted to an expert
discussion on trade and the environment within the context of the role of the NAAEC. In addition, the
JPAC has proposed roundtable discussions regarding the role of NAAEC and CEC. Mr. Chavez conveyed
JPAC's appreciation to the NAC/GAC for their support.
Working Session II: Discussion on Activities and Best Practices
Jeffrey Wennberg, Chair of the GAC
Theresa Pardo, Ph.D., Chair of the NAC
Dr. Pardo explained that the NAC and GAC would meet separately, then reconvene for a brief report on
their individual strategies. She explained that Mr. Wennberg had developed a categorized brainstorming
list of criteria for selecting exemplary and best practice initiatives, policies, agreements and education
programs based on input from Working Session I, which the committees are welcome to use in their
discussions.
Committees Reconvene
Dr. Pardo reviewed the NAC deliberations. The NAC discussed the process that will be used to select
candidate projects to be highlighted at the 2018 Council Session and defined the expected deliverables.
The members collectively noted the limitations in the context of this 2-day meeting to generate a highly
authoritative, verifiable and comprehensive list of projects (i.e., gold standard) that would be agreed upon
based on a standard framework of smart green growth products. Therefore, time will be spent to identify
projects that are close exemplars. The next steps will be to further refine each criterion and establish
threshold criteria relative to environmental impact, green growth and jobs.
Mr. Wennberg reviewed the GAC deliberations. The members reduced the brainstorming list of criteria
into three priority categories or filters: Category I, economic growth, environmental benefit and green
growth impact; Category II, clear objectives, measurable results and community engagement; and
Category III, adaptable, replicable, scalable and sustainable. The priority categories were used to evaluate,
by trial, the green growth example projects previously identified by NAC/GAC members. The Catawba
County, North Carolina, EcoComplex and Blackburn Resource Recovery Facility project met all three
priority criteria categories, but it may not be replicable in all settings. Although the Green Enterprise Zone
initiative clearly met priority Category I, it lacked information on prior successes. The New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Initiative and the 50 Certified STAR Communities met all the
criteria and would be strong candidates for recommendation. Members proposed that candidate projects be
submitted with one of three recommendations: (1) recommend based on the information; (2) good
candidate, but more information is needed; and (3) does not meet the criteria.
Summary and Next Steps
Mr. Carrillo explained the logistics for the following day and completion of the meeting agenda. The
meeting was recessed at 5:19 p.m. EDT.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
11
-------
Friday, September 15, 2017
Call to Order
Mr. Carrillo called the meeting to order and reviewed the day's agenda, which focused on the business
meeting of the NAC/GAC. He expressed appreciation to FACMD staff Ms. Geraldine Brown,
Ms. Shirley Jones and Ms. Stephanie McCoy for their efforts in preparing for the meeting. Mr. Carrillo
introduced Ms. McCoy, FACMD, OARM, EPA, to provide logistical information regarding travel
vouchers and other matters. Mr. Carrillo called members' attention to the next meeting date, April 26-27,
2018. He will assess EPA's available resources to support members in attending the 2018 Council
Session.
Plenary: Joint Committee Meeting
Dr. Pardo explained that committees will continue discussions on the 2018 Youth Innovation Challenge
and potential partners. Mr. Carey voiced concern that the CEC's consideration of "youth" as those
between the ages of 18 and 26 may not fit the broader community's definition of youth in the context of
middle and high school ages. It might be reasonable to suggest that the CEC change the name of the
Challenge.
Dr. Kilungo emphasized the importance of ensuring diverse representation in the Challenge, which may
involve requiring universities to partner with the local community.
Mr. Hester pointed out that in addition to prize money to further develop ideas, the prospects of finding
and obtaining jobs are strong motivations. He suggested engaging Challenge winners in an interview
platform that could lead to internships or jobs.
Members identified potential partners and collaborators for the Challenge:
• Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa (Iowa City, Iowa)
• Annual innovation initiatives at Morehouse College (Atlanta, Georgia)
• U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development (Austin, Texas)
• Council for Sustainable Energy (Washington, D.C.)
• Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California)
• Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, Washington)
• Coca-Cola Foundation (Atlanta, Georgia)
• Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (New York, New York)
• Green for All (Oakland, California)
• University-based sustainability programs
• Various national laboratories
Dr. Nathan asked about the strategy to communicate the Challenge idea to potential supporters. Dr. Pardo
explained that the committees' ideas will be submitted to EPA separately from the advice letter.
Mr. Troche and EPA will decide on the appropriate outreach efforts.
Mr. Carey commented on the ambitious December 2017 deadline to secure support for the Challenge.
Establishing relationships with program officers in charge of portfolios with expendable year-end funds
would not be timely. Ms. Klein indicated that she would consider soliciting modest financial support from
her longstanding relationships with organizations; Mr. Harris has contacts at the U.S. Business Council
that he could engage for support.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
12
-------
Public Comment Period
No public comments were offered.
Committees Meet Separately
Mr. Wennberg explained that the NAC and GAC would meet separately, then reconvene for a report on
their individual deliberations.
GAC Separate Meeting
Mr. Wennberg opened the GAC discussion and reminded members of the charge. He explained that ideas
on the Youth Innovation Challenge would be separate from the advice letter. The projects were rated
based on the following: Category I, gold standard; Category II, potential candidates that meet most, but
not all, of the criteria; and Category III, not recommended.
Members continued reviewing and evaluating the NAC/GAC green growth project ideas.
The NCWRC Pollinator Projects. Mr. Wennberg noted the projects' clear positive benefit on the
environment, affordability and focus on jobs. Mr. Wright pointed out that the scope allowed flexibility for
application to rural settings, but measurable results are not indicated. Ms. Bohrt commented that the
project may still be in the experimental pilot phase, which would explain the lack of results. Dr. Nathan
called attention to the pollinator programs in the state of Texas, including the city of San Antonio, that are
sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Mayor's Monarch Pledge Action Items, which
are not coordinated projects. Mr. Wright suggested including these initiatives as potential projects that
EPA could research. Ms. Bohrt pointed out that the innovative aspect of the NCWRC project is the
collaborative efforts to develop pollinator habitats on solar farms. Members rated the project as
Category II, indicating that the concept is promising, but more data are needed.
Colorado Wetlands Restoration in Sagebrush Habitat/Sage Grouse Initiative. Mr. Wright noted the
project's reach beyond the state of Colorado, as well as its meritorious and reproducible features.
Members rated the project as Category I.
Michigan Interstate-75 Conservation Corridor Plan. Dr. Nathan commented that the project is a good
model of community development and engagement. Mr. Wennberg noted its replicability and good
practices. Members rated the project as Category I, with the expectation that measurable results are
available although not documented.
Omaha, Nebraska, Public Schools Green Schools Initiative. Ms. Gonzales pointed out the measurable
results and student engagement. Members rated the project as Category I.
NCWRC Green Growth Toolbox. Mr. Wennberg described the green growth toolbox as a resource, an
enabler for job growth while preserving the environment. Mr. Wright suggested rating the initiative as
category II and emphasizing the need for further research to allow a complete evaluation.
Colorado State University Composting Project. Members noted the similarities to the green schools
initiative and its full cycle capabilities; they rated the project as Category I.
Idaho State University Sustainability Project. Discussion was tabled based on prior comments regarding
inadequate planning and slow growth; the project was rated as Category III.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
13
-------
Monarch Program in Pocatello, Idaho. Members pointed out that the project is an example of a small-
scale conservation initiative and suggested leveraging national monarch conservation efforts, such as the
Mayor's Monarch Pledge Action Items. Members rated the project as Category III.
Sonora Green Growth Strategy. Ms. Gonzales lauded the efforts of the strategy, but noted that the
project does not have a proven track record in reducing poverty in the indigenous community or
promoting social inclusion in environmental sustainability and economic growth. Working with the
Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) in this initiative could promote change. Mr. Wennberg stated that
the information being reviewed on the Sonora strategy does not address measurable results. EPA could
consider following up with GGGI for further details. Members rated the project as Category II.
GRID Alternatives Colorado. Members commented on the reputable and reproducible features of the
initiative and rated the project as Category I.
Lakota Solar Enterprises (LSC). Members praised the concept and noted the high emphasis on training,
but data on employment were not accessible from the company's website. Members rated the project as
Category II. EPA could consider following up with LSC.
Southern Ute Indian Tribe Methane Capture Project. Dr. Nathan commented that the project appears
to be in the pilot testing phase. No success has been demonstrated, but it has potential if the project's full
life cycle is achieved. Members rated the project as Category II.
General Motors (GM) Landfill Free Initiative. Members pointed out the benefit of showcasing an
industry-adopted green growth initiative from the private sector. Sustainability is not an issue for the
automotive industry to implement this model. Members rated the project as Category I.
Mr. Wennberg led a discussion on engaging states, tribal nations and the private sector in North America
to share their experiences in advancing green growth. Dr. Hanson suggested contacting governors and
tribal leaders who would relay the information to the respective green program organizers in their regions.
Ms. Gonzales observed that requests or correspondences sent directly to an environmental specialist stand
a better chance of getting a response. Letters addressed to tribal leaders with busy schedules often go
unnoticed. Mr. Wennberg pointed out that national associations provide links on their websites to
sustainability offices, which would be resources to leverage. These sustainability offices would have
access to data on green growth projects the associations have endorsed. Mr. Wright pointed out that EPA
partners with the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP), which is associated with the
Northern Arizona University. The ITEP frequently corresponds to their networks via their Email listserv,
which would be a resource for EPA to leverage. Mr. Carrillo noted that NAC member, Dr. Ann Marie
Chischilly, is Executive Director for ITEP and would be a key person to contact. Ms. Gonzales
emphasized that the AIEO would have a database of contact information for tribal leaders.
Mr. Wennberg opened the discussion to items beyond the charge question. He called to attention to a
prior suggestion that the committees should advocate to EPA that in the NAAFTA renegotiation process,
the goals and fundamental functions under the NAAEC would be preserved. Mr. Wennberg remarked that
the NAAEC and the CEC have worked from the onset to ensure that the environmental information
standards and regulatory requirements across the three nations were harmonized, which aligns with the
current aims of the NAFTA renegotiations. He pointed out that it would be within the rights of the GAC
to make a statement if they choose to, but advised careful thought as to the type of statement the
committee would present and to consider a forum to use that would be separate from the advice letter.
Members suggested that the benefits and risks be weighted.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
14
-------
NAC Separate Meeting
Dr. Pardo opened the discussion by restating the charge. She explained that the committee would spend
its time addressing the charge, revisiting the criteria and reviewing the green growth initiatives. Members
considered how the Council can engage states, tribal nations and the private sector to share their
experiences in green growth. The following actions were recommended:
• Invite stakeholders to Council Sessions.
• Identify all stakeholders and focus on reaching key stakeholders.
• Offer incentives.
• Video-taped elevator talks.
• Identify the benefits.
• Showcase stakeholder attributes.
• Establish a blog to inform the community.
• Develop a 2-minute video describing the CEC.
• Model the Flame Challenge sponsored by the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at
Stony Brook University.
• Use the 2018 Council Session platform to host invited conversations with the EPA Administrator
and use EPA Region 6 as an organizer.
• Reach out to green jobs employers.
• Target associations with demonstrated capabilities in green growth, and use EPA liaisons to
external committees to engage them.
• OITA could consider communicating the charge Agency-wide.
• Host a forum to share knowledge at all stakeholder levels.
• Connect green growth initiatives to hurricane relief efforts.
• Offer travel awards to civil society leaders in all sectors to attend Council Sessions. Solicit travel
awards sponsors through capacity-building forums.
Dr. Pardo led a discussion on the criteria for evaluating exemplary green growth projects. Mr. Perez noted
sustainability, green growth and jobs as threshold criteria and suggested adding target conditions to those
criteria. Mr. Harris pointed out that private sector industry-related green growth projects may not
necessarily provide an opportunity for direct community engagement as commonly seen. The criteria for
replicability, scalability and adaptability should apply to the location/site, as well as the community.
Dr. Santiago emphasized that sustainability criteria have several aspects—economic, social and
environmental—and Dr. Lybecker noted that clear indications of leadership should be included as a
criterion. Ms. Sara E. Hopper (DuPont), NAC member, suggested changing the term "affordable" to
"economically feasible" to offset conveying the message that projects should be small-scale.
Dr. Pardo led a lightning round on exemplary green growth projects. Mr. Harris described the landfill-free
initiatives being led by General Motors (GM) and others in the automotive industry. The objective is to
reduce waste sent to landfills to zero quantity, which is a challenge for a material resource-intensive
industry. GM has 152 certified landfill-free sites worldwide to date and addresses green growth criteria,
including jobs creation, cost savings (i.e., economic feasibility) and best practices.
Dr. Kilungo presented on a community solar program, GRID Alternatives, and a green job training
initiative, Lakota Solar Enterprises. GRID Alternatives Colorado overcomes the barriers to accessible
solar energy in under-resourced communities. Solar community panels are located offsite in a shared
community solar array and residents can participate without having home or land ownership. The
program is scalable to fit all communities, sustainable and adaptable to population size. In addition, the
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
15
-------
program engages the community, has measurable results, generates economic growth and provides
training. Lakota Solar Enterprises builds solar air furnaces in tribal communities and provides green job
training to local tribal youth, which is firmly sustainable with the expansion to open the Red Cloud
Renewable Energy Center. The measurable results on job development were not readily available.
Ms. Klein reported on exemplary sustainable green growth case studies. The NCWRC Pollinator projects
involve a partnership between NCWRC, Strata Solar and the city of Raleigh to develop best practices for
creating pollinator habitat solar farms and using municipal waste/composting to fertilize habitats. Criteria
being addressed include green growth, jobs and economic benefit. These projects endorse community
engagement and are replicable, but their scalability is yet to be demonstrated. The Colorado Wetlands
Restoration in Sagebrush Habitat/Sage Grouse Initiative illustrates a shift from using highly engineered
and expensive systems for habitat restoration to using low-cost structures made from locally available
products. The project is scalable and reputable, and it provides economic benefit to private ranchers and
landowners who have endangered species on their land. The Michigan Interstate-75 Conservation
Corridor Plan is implementing the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Eco-Logical
Framework. With FHWA as a sponsor, community engagement is significant, reputable and scalable. The
Omaha, Nebraska, Public Schools Green Schools Initiative is a youth engagement effort. Cost savings to
the school district and improvement of energy efficiency are key features.
Dr. Lybecker described the Colorado State University Composting Program. The goal is to minimize food
waste from food service facilities on campus by composting. The results have been creating jobs within
the university, developing internships and engaging engineering students to share ideas for improving the
program. The project demonstrates economic and environmental benefit; community engagement,
including outreach to food banks to minimize waste; measurable results; and scalability.
Members collectively reviewed the Colorado Southern Ute Indian Tribe Methane Capture project
submitted by Mr. Antonioli, which involves capturing, filtering and reusing methane that would otherwise
have been vented to the atmosphere. The project demonstrates economic and environmental benefit, has
clear objectives and measurable results, and some potential for replicability, scalability and sustainability,
which would depend on the source and location of the excess methane.
Dr. Pardo asked for other ideas on other green growth projects. Mr. Carey called attention to the BPP
survey conducted prior to the meeting. More than 3,000 in the BPP's networks in academia, business and
corporate sectors, government, nonprofit organizations, and foundations located across the United States
and Mexico were asked to provide input to the NAC, CEC, on how best to engage states, tribal nations
and the private sector and to share experiences promoting green growth in North America—feedback was
received through an online portal. Three percent of those surveyed responded, all of whom indicated that
they were engaged in green growth projects but did not specify the project. A post-survey follow-up is
being planned. In addition, BPP was contacted by 20 persons who were interested in green growth in
general and could potentially comprise a new stakeholder group to engage in the CEC agenda and in
future collaborations. Dr. Pardo suggested capturing the BPP survey response in the EPA advice letter.
Dr. Pardo led a review of 10 NAC/GAC green growth examples. She explained that the committee will
rank the projects based on the criteria, categorize them by type and link projects to a CEC priority if time
permits. The projects were ranked according to the following: (1) meets threshold criteria; (2) meets 1 and
has measurable clear objectives and results; and (3) meets 1 and 2 and is replicable, scalable and
adaptable. Projects meeting the criteria will be recommended to EPA as initiatives to showcase. The
recommendations will be based on (I) projects to consider, (II) projects that almost meet the gold
standard, and (III) good ideas to be further developed. The projects were categorized based on type (e.g.,
community focused or private sector).
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
16
-------
Colorado State University Composting Project. Members determined that the project meets all of the
criteria for Category I.
Colorado Wetlands Restoration in Sagebrush Habitat/ Sage Grouse Initiative. Members determined
that the project meets all of the criteria for Category I.
GM Landfill Free Initiative. Members determined that the project meets all of the criteria for Category
I.
GRID Alternatives Colorado. Members determined that the project meets all of the criteria for Category
I.
Lakota Solar Enterprises. Members determined that the project meets all of the criteria for Category I.
Michigan Interstate-75 Conservation Corridor Plan. Members determined that the project meets all of
the criteria for Category I.
NCWRC Pollinator Projects. Members pointed out that the pollinator initiative is a demonstration
project. It is very innovative, but no sustainability data are available due to the age of the project.
Members determined that the project meets the criteria for Category II.
Omaha, Nebraska, Public Schools Green Schools Initiative. Members noted the strong youth
engagement component and clear cost savings, but job growth was not indicated. There are strategies to
doing energy savings projects that also provide jobs. The recommendation is to find a public schools
model to highlight that demonstrates those criteria. Members determined that the project meets the criteria
for Category III.
Southern Ute Indian Tribe Methane Capture Project. Members determined that the project meets the
criteria for Category II. They commented that the project would be adaptable to other situations that are
independent of carbon pricing.
The 50 Certified STAR Communities. Members determined that the project meets all of the criteria for
Category I.
Dr. Pardo opened the discussion to items beyond the charge question. Mr. Carey recommended that the
CEC consider developing a repository of green growth projects that would help to fill the gap in
knowledge on this topic. Dr. Kilungo pointed out that examples of green growth projects can be obtained
from the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website, which also
is linked to the individual project's website.
Committees Reconvene in Plenary Session
Reports From the NAC and GAC Chairs
Dr. Pardo reviewed the NAC deliberations. The members began the session by addressing the first charge
question. A list of general ideas to engage stakeholders was generated. Critical components included
developing a clear benefit statement, identifying the key stakeholders, offering incentives for
participation, establishing a blog to increase awareness of the CEC and build a green growth constituency,
and innovative use of social media outlet to generate interest. Members next focused attention on
identifying engagement ideas specific to EPA. For example, take full advantage of the CEC sessions and
opportunities to meet Administrator Pruitt, arrange closed meetings around this flash of interest and
engage Region 6 in the activities. Members suggested that the CEC and EPA identify the green jobs and
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
17
-------
develop outreach mechanisms to those employers, leverage Agency liaisons in the private sector and
target those organizations, and focus on targeted outreach to specific groups. The opportunity exists to
connect green growth initiatives to hurricane relief efforts. Sponsoring travel grants to attend Council
Sessions for civil society leaders worldwide and capacity building also were proposed. A lightning round
of talks by members on the green growth project ideas resulted in refining the criteria to three groups:
(1) projects to consider, (2) projects that almost meet the gold standard, and (3) good ideas to be further
developed (e.g., the Omaha Public Schools Green Schools Initiative). Projects were categorized into these
three groups.
Dr. Pardo summarized the other topics discussed by the NAC. Members observed that there is no single
source of green growth projects. The NAC recommend that the CEC develop a systematic repository of
related materials (i.e., a community of practice) that highlight best practices and provide resources.
Building a federal library of green growth practices would be strategic for EPA. Acknowledging the value
of NAAEC, members encouraged retaining the substance of the NAAEC as NAFTA negotiations
proceed.
Mr. Wennberg reviewed the GAC deliberations. Members continued review and evaluation of the green
growth projects. The criteria were revisited and three ratings groups emerged: Category I, gold standard;
Category II, potential candidates that meet most, but not all, of the criteria; and Category III, not
recommended. Several initiatives—Colorado Wetlands Restoration in Sagebrush Habitat/Sage Grouse
Initiative, Michigan Interstate-75 Conservation Corridor Plan, Omaha Public Schools Green Schools
Initiative, Colorado State Composting, Colorado GRID Alternatives, and GM Landfill-Free—will be
recommended to EPA as meeting Category I standards. Projects considered as promising for Category II
included the North Carolina Green Growth Toolbox, Lakota Solar Enterprises, and the NCWRC
Pollinator projects. The committee next discussed ways to engage states, tribal nations, and the private
sector in North America to share their experiences in advancing green growth. Identifying the appropriate
contacts in the various entities will ensure effective outreach and dissemination of information. Members
observed that such organizations as the National League of Cities and the National Association of
Counties already have green growth initiatives in place and would be resources to leverage. Private-sector
groups and professional organizations also may have ongoing green-related projects. Members identified
Dr. Ann Marie Chischilly, Executive Director, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals and NAC
member, as a key person to begin conversations on engagement for the EPA Charge. Outreach to green
growth special interest groups on social media outlets would be another strategy to address the charge
question.
Mr. Wennberg asked if there were other business. Mr. Mark Joyce, Associate Director, FACMD,
wondered whether the advice letters would be completed prior to Ms. Nishida attending the October 2017
Alt Reps meeting. Mr. Wennberg replied that the target date for Chairs to submit their advice letters is
October 16, 2017. Mr. Carrillo will confirm the date of the Alt Reps meeting and Chairs will coordinate
with their committees on the timing for the advice letters.
Ms. Green encouraged EPA consider the context when viewing the solicited examples of green growth
projects from the private sector and for EPA to use their enforcement lens carefully. A for-profit
initiative's focus may not necessarily fit the green model criteria for growth, per say.
Mr. Joyce informed members that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB), also supported by
FACMD, recently completed its annual report to the President and Congress titled "Environmental
Quality and Border Security: A 10-Year Retrospective." EPA thought that this 10-year retrospect would
be timely to re-visit. Also relevant to current environmental issues is the GNEB's 2016 report titled
"Climate Change and Resilient Communities Along the U. S. -Mexico Border: The Role of the Federal
Agencies." Copies of each report will be forwarded to Mr. Carrillo to share with the committees.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
18
-------
Adjournment
Ms. Harris remarked on the efficiency and resourcefulness of the NAC/GAC and conveyed EPA's
gratitude for their continued support.
Dr. Pardo and Mr. Wennberg adjourned the meeting at 12:31 p.m. EDT.
Action Items
~ Submit ideas on foundations or organizations to engage in the 2018 CEC Youth Innovation
Challenge to Mr. Carrillo.
~ Mr. Carey will forward information to Mr. Carrillo on potential union-based foundations
interested in participating as EPA co-investors to address resources for tribal nations.
~ EPA will share information on the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada transboundary collaborations
with the committees.
~ Dr. Kilungo will forward to Mr. Carrillo links to websites or contact information for experts in
green growth initiatives.
~ Mr. Joyce will forward copies of the 2106 and 2017 GNEB annual reports to Mr. Carrillo to share
with the committees.
~ Dr. Pardo will share her draft advice letter on engaging states, tribal nations and the private sector
on green growth initiatives with the NAC members for their comments.
~ Mr. Wennberg will share his draft advice letter on engaging states, tribal nations and the private
sector on green growth initiatives with the GAC members for their comments.
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
19
-------
Summary Certification
I, Jeffrey Wennberg, Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee, and I, Theresa Pardo, Chair of the
National Advisory Committee, certify that the meeting minutes for the dates of September 14-15, 2017, as
hereby detailed, contain a record of the persons present and give an accurate description of matters
discussed and conclusions reached and copies of all reports received, issued or approved by the advisory
committees. My signature date complies with the 90-day due date after each meeting required by the GSA
Final Rule.
Jeffrey Wennberg
Chair, GAC
Theresa Pardo
Chair, NAC
12/11/17
11/5/17
Date
Date
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
20
-------
Appendix A: Meeting Participants
NAC Members
Theresa Pardo, Ph.D., Chair
Director
Center for Technology in Government
Associate Professor of Public Administration
and Policy
University at Albany
State University of New York
David Antonioli
Chief Executive Officer
Verified Carbon Standard
Andrew P. Carey
Executive Director
U.S.-Mexico Border Philanthropy Partnership
Carolyn L. Green
Founder/Managing Partner
EnerGreen Capital Management, LLC
Donald K. Harris
President and Founder
Amerris Consulting, LLC
Tracy Hester, J.D.
Professor of Practice
University of Houston Law Center
Sara E. Hopper
Manager
Federal Government Affairs
DuPont
Aminata P. Kilungo, Ph.D.
Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public
Health
Department of Health and Promotion Science
The University of Arizona
Mary L. Klein
President and CEO
NatureServe
Donna L. Lybecker, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Political Science
Idaho State University
Justin Robert McCartney
Georgetown University Undergraduate Student
The Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign
Service
Georgetown University
Carlos Perez
Principal
Galica LLC
Simone Sagovac
Project Director
Southwest Detroit Community Benefits
Coalition
Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.
Professor
College of Engineering
The University of Texas at El Paso
GAC Members
Jeffrey Wennberg, Chair
Commissioner of Public Works
City of Rutland, Vermont
Martha Bohrt
City Manager's Fellow
Office of Resilience
City of Norfolk
Sally Ann Gonzales
State Representative
Arizona House of Representatives
Suzzane E. Hanson
Regional Manager
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Vincent R. Nathan, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Assistant Health Director
San Antonio Metropolitan Health District
September 14-15, 2017, NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
21
-------
Cristina Viesca-Santos, J.D.
Assistant County Attorney
El Paso County Attorney's Office
Kelly C. Wright
Program Manager
Environmental Waste Manager Program
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Fort Hall Indian Reservation
Designated Federal Officer
Oscar Carrillo
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division
Office of Administration and Resources
Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Participants
Geraldine Brown
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Monisha Harris
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division
Office of Administration and Resources
Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Shirley Jones
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Marta Jordan
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mark Joyce
Associate Director
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division
Office of Administration and Resources
Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jim McCleary
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stephanie McCoy
Federal Advisory Committee Management
Division
Office of Administration and Resources
Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jane Nishida
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Luis Troche
Senior Advisor
North American Program
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Felecia Wright
Acting Director
American Indian Environmental Office
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Other Participants
Cesar Rafael Chavez
Executive Director
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Secretariat
Robert Moyer
Unit Director
Submissions on Enforcement Matters
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Contractor Staff
Carolyn J. Fisher, Ph.D.
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
September 14-15, 2017 NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
22
-------
Appendix B: Meeting Agenda
PIN AC
LrMiirftfMY^Ant inn IforJn \A/r*rl/mn
Environment and Trade Working Together
Official Meeting of the
National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the
U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation
September 14-15,2017
U.S. EPA WJC South
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel: 202-564-2294 fax: 202-564-8129
9/12/17
AGENDA
~EPA Con ference Room 2138 WJC South ~
Thursday, September 14, 2017
9:00 a.m. Registration
9:30 a.m. Call to Order and Introductions
Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer, EPA
9:35 a.m. Welcome
Monisha Harris, Director, Federal Advisory Committee Management
9:40 a.m. Overview of Agenda
Theresa Pardo, Chair of the National Advisory Committee
Jeff Wennberg, Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee
9:55 a.m. Update on U.S. Priorities & Guidance, Tribal Update
Jane Nishida, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of International Tribal Affairs
(OITA), EPA
Felicia Wright, Acting Director, American Indian Environmental Office (OITA)
10:50 a.m. BREAK
11:00 a.m. Working Session I: Brainstorming on Engaging States, Tribal Nations and
the Private Sector
Theresa Pardo, Chair of the National Advisory Committee
Jeff Wennberg, Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee
12:00 p.m. Public Comments Period
September 14-15, 2017 NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
23
-------
Thursday, September 14, 2017 Continued .
12:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:30 p.m. CEC Update on Operational Plan and NAPECA Grants
Cesar Rafael Chavez, Executive Director, CEC Secretariat
Question & Answer Period
2:15 p.m. Update on SEM & Status of Submissions
Robert Moyer, CEC SEM Director
Lisa Goldman, Office of General Counsel, EPA
Question & Answer Period
3:00 p.m. JPAC Report-out
Robert Varney, Chair, Joint Public Advisory Committee
Question & Answer Period
3:15 pm BREAK
3:30 p.m. Working Session II: Discussion on Activities and Best Practices
Theresa Pardo, Chair of the National Advisory Committee
Jeff Wennberg, Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee
4:30 p.m. Summary & Next Steps
Theresa Pardo, Chair of the National Advisory Committee
Jeff Wennberg, Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee
5:00 p.m. ADJOURN
September 14-15, 2017 NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
24
-------
Friday, September 15,2017
Business Meeting:
8:30 a.m. Registration
9:00 a.m. Call to Order
Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer, EPA
9:05 a.m. Plenary: Joint Committee Meeting
Theresa Pardo, Chair of the National Advisory Committee
Jeff Wennberg, Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee
• Discussion on Spring/Fall 2018 meetings
9:30 a.m. Public Comment Period
9:45 a m. Committees Meet Separately
GAC stays in "2138" Conference Room
NAC meets in "1132 " Conference Room
12:00 p.m. LUNCH
1:00 p.m. Committees Reconvene in Plenary Session
Report-outs from NAC/GAC Chairs
3:00 p.m. ADJOURN
September 14-15, 2017 NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
25
-------
Appendix C: Charge Letter for September 14-15, 2017 NAC/GAC Meeting
Charge Letter: NAC/GAC Meeting
September 17
Washington, DC
Dear NAC and GAC Members,
Since our last meeting on March 28-29, 2017, Canadian Minister for Environment and Climate Change,
Catherine McKenna, hosted and chaired the CEC Council Session on June 27-28, 2017. The United
States assumed the chairmanship of the Council and announced Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as the
location of the 2018 Council Session. Also, the 2017-18 Operational Plan forthe CEC was announced,
with a strong focus on positively impacting the nexus between trade and the environment. The Council
session also featured a dialogue with the youth and the public on how innovation can accelerate clean
growth and advance North American competitiveness. In addition, the TEK Terms of Operation were
updated and a commitment to a one-year cycle of NAPECA grants was announced.
Under the Operational Plan 2 18, the CEC will undertake ten cooperative projects that bring
together experts on important environmental issues of regional concern, such as greening transport by
reducing maritime shipping emissions, achieving legal and sustainable trade in select North American
species, measuring and mitigating food loss and waste, protecting monarch butterflies and pollinators
vital to food crops, advancing economic growth and conservation of migratory birds and habitats through
ecotourism, and improving cost effectiveness and environmental protection through increased industrial
energy efficiency.
In this context, the "CHARGE" for this meeting is to provide advice on how the Council can engage
States, tribal nations and the private sector in North America to share their experiences advancing green
growth, North American trade and environmental protection; and which exemplary activities and best
practices being carried out by States, tribal nations and the private sector focused on advancing green
growth could be highlighted at the 2018 Council Session.
As is customary for our meetings, you will also be briefed by the CEC Secretariat Executive Director,
Cesar Chavez and the CEC Joint Public Advisory Committee Chair, Robert Varney. Finally, the
committees are welcome to provide advice on other trade and environment issues related to the
NAAEC.
September 14-15, 2017 NAC/GAC Meeting Summary
26
------- |