¦- V •' ¦ -
ih.Environmental Advisors Across Borders
Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting
October 30, 2014
11:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. EST
Call-in: 1-866-299-3188; Conference Code: 202-233-0068
Final Meeting Summary
Welcome and Introductions
Ann-Marie Gantner, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Diane Austin, Chair,
GNEB; Toni Rousey, Acting Associate Director, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee
Management and Outreach (ODACMO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Mark
Joyce, Associate Director, ODACMO
Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner, Acting GNEB DFO, conducted the roll call and thanked the Board
members and alternates for their participation.
Dr. Diane Austin, Chair of the GNEB, welcomed the Board members and expressed her
gratitude for their efforts as part of the Board while supporting the environmental and border
work of their respective organizations and agencies. Dr. Austin said that she will retire from the
Board following this meeting as she has been on the Board for the past 7 years. Members
expressed appreciation for her leadership, competence and service; they also lauded her for
having a fair and open-minded approach. Ms. Gantner expressed her own and ODACMO's
appreciation to Dr. Austin for her time and efforts in working with and leading the Board
through GNEB issues and reports, and the time spent on many conference calls, teleconferences
and in face-to-face meetings.
Ms. Gantner introduced Ms. Toni Rousey, Acting Staff Office Director for Committee
Management, ODACMO. Ms. Rousey recognized the outstanding work that Dr. Austin has
performed, and thanked her on behalf of ODACMO. Mr. Mark Joyce, Associate Director,
ODACMO, and Ms. Gantner welcomed Ms. Diana Jimenez Trejo, Consulado General de
Mexico of the Embassy of Mexico.
Ms. Gantner indicated that the GNEB had achieved a quorum for this meeting and could vote to
approve the Report.
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1
-------
Overview of the Agenda
Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB
Dr. Austin thanked all of the Board members and alternates for being on the call. She reviewed
the agenda for today's meeting. She indicated that the meeting will begin with a Public Comment
period, followed by discussion of substantive comments on the draft of the 16th GNEB report
that had been sent in by Board members, a vote for or against approval of the Report, and a
discussion of the final steps for transmission of the Report to the President of the United States.
Dr. Austin thanked everyone who had contributed comments on the draft Report.
Public Comment Period
There were no written public comments received by the Acting DFO prior to this meeting, and
no oral public comments were offered during the meeting when Dr. Austin called for comments.
Discussion of the Draft Report
Dr. Austin referred members to the draft Report sent by Ms. Gantner prior to this meeting.
Dr. Austin had listed the substantive comments by page number in a separate document to
facilitate the discussion at this meeting. Ms. Gantner noted that the comments from the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) were not incorporated in the draft report
because the file could not be opened. Dr. Austin stated that the IBWC's substantive comments
would be raised orally at this meeting by Ms. Sally Spener and Commissioner Edward-Drusina
of the IBWC. In addition, Dr. Cyrus Reed indicated that he had a comment that was intended to
clarify a recommendation. Dr. Keith Pezzoli expressed appreciation to Dr. Austin for
incorporating an urban perspective into the Report.
Substantive Changes
Dr. Austin reminded the Board members that the focus of the discussion is to provide and review
substantive changes to the draft Report. Ms. Gantner requested that Board members send all
further editorial changes to her by Thursday, November 6.
Executive Summary (Page 1, Line I)
Ms. Spener noted a placeholder in the draft Report for an Executive Summary and asked whether
one would be prepared and provided to the Board for review. Ms. Gantner responded that the
Report traditionally includes an Executive Summary, which is written after the Report is
completed. She asked the Board how they would like to proceed with writing it. Dr. Austin
offered to write a draft Executive Summary by November 2 and send it to the Board for review.
She would let Board members know if she needed further time to write it. Board members
agreed with this plan, which included completing their review of the Executive Summary within
1 week of receipt.
2
-------
Page 4, Lines 6-9
In the sentence . .the goal is nevertheless to incorporate sustainable ecological attributes of
species assemblages..Ms. Spener asked whether the goal is one of GNEB's goals and
suggested that the sentence be reworded .in lay terms. Dr. Austin replied that the goal is pursued
by those who address ecological restoration, and the sentence does not refer to a GNEB goal.
Dr. Eckert concurred with this. Dr. Austin asked that the language be simplified during the
copyediting process.
Page 4, Line 13
Ms. Spener requested clarification of "mineral cycles." Dr. Eckert explained that this refers to
nitrogen and carbon cycles. Dr. Austin suggested that the text be edited to refer to "water, carbon
and nitrogen cycles." Members agreed with the change.
Page 5, Line 18
Dr. Austin acknowledged a typographical error of "elf instead of "elk." This will be corrected
during copyediting. Ms. Spener asked for further details about "wolf-elk-riparian vegetation
studies." Dr. Greg Eckert said that the term often used is "food web." He noted that ecosystem
studies have shown the effect of ungulate overabundance on changes in vegetation as well as
water flows and geomorphology over time.
Page 6, Line 16
Dr. Ivonne Santiago cited a paragraph in the Advice Letter written in 2013 that discussed the
global ecological value of the region. She suggested that the paragraph be incorporated as an
introduction to the eco-regional approach being proposed in the Report.
Page 7, Figure 2: Map of Commission for Environmental Cooperation's Ecological Regions
Mr. Joyce referred to the notation "Need NatureServe To Update Map" at the end of the caption
and asked how Figure 2 should be cited. Dr. Eckert replied that Pat Comer of NatureServe had
sent a different map to Ms. Gantner, but it was noted that the newer map did not reflect the
Report's text. Members agreed to retain the existing map.
Page 10, Figure 3: Map of U.S. Federal Lands in the Border Region
Ms. Spener recommended that the caption of Figure 3 be changed to read "U.S. federal lands and
drainage basins along the U.S.-Mexico border. The border area has eight sub-areas with similar
hydrologic and physiographic features." In response to a query by Mr. Stephen Niemeyer,
Ms. Spener said that the original source document indicated the area is divided into sub-areas
because of the similarities found within each sub-area. Dr. Austin said that the text modification
should make it clear that similarities exist at the sub-area level. Members agreed with the change.
3
-------
Page 13, Line 1
Ms. Spener noted that listed candidate species and at-risk species are mentioned but not defined.
She said that the reader might not understand these. Dr. Austin proposed that a footnote defining
these terms could be included.
Mr. Niemeyer asked if a Glossary would be included in the Report and in which such definitions
could be included rather than as footnotes. Mr. Steven Kameny advocated for a Glossary, which
would be helpful to non-technical readers. Dr. Austin said that the List of Acronyms could be
expanded to include glossary terms; the simple approach is to take terms that already are defined
in the Report and consolidate their definitions into a glossary. Dr. Pezzoli noted that readers
might use the glossary to determine priorities or a roadmap for the document and encouraged
members during the process of reviewing comments to consider which terms should be included
in the glossary; he suggested that the terms "reclamation" and "rehabilitation" be included.
Dr. Austin indicated that the Glossary could be sent to Board members for review with the draft
Executive Summary.
Page 14, Line 42 - Page 15, Line 1
Dr. Eckert referred to a comment and references that he sent regarding the habitat conditions
section. He said that evidence exists tying an overabundance of ungulates—native and non-
native—to increased prevalence of the cattle tick, which provides a stronger link between cattle
ticks and ecological restoration. Dr. Austin said that this comment will be incorporated during
the copy editing process.
Page 16, Line 12
Dr. Austin referred to additional text from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), which is to describe the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) that is
referred to at a later point in the Report. The following text was added: "The Office for Coastal
Management within the NOS administers programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA): Coastal Zone Management Programs (CZMPs) and the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System (NERRS). The CZMPs are established to manage and balance competing uses
of and impacts to coastal resources while the NERRS is a network of coastal areas protected for
long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education and coastal stewardship. The States of
California and Texas are the only states in the U.S.-Mexico border region that are eligible to
participate in the program and both states have chosen to develop these programs, (see page XX
for a case study of state-federal partnership in habitat restoration at the Tijuana River NERR)."
The page cross-reference will be added during the copyediting process.
Dr. Austin said that NOAA suggested that an additional paragraph be included in this section.
The following text was added: "The CZMA emphasizes the primacy of state decision-making
regarding the coastal zone. Federal consistency is a powerful tool that states use to manage
coastal uses and resources and to facilitate cooperation and coordination with federal agencies.
Federal consistency requires federal agency activities, including habitat restoration activities, that
have reasonably foreseeable effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal
4
-------
zone must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a
coastal state's federally approved coastal management program."
Page 19, Line 13
Ms. Spener noted an inconsistency in the section "The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Hueco Tanks
Traditional Lands" section, which references the three federally recognized Texas tribes although
there are only two federally recognized tribes in Texas. The text was changed from three to two
tribes.
Page 21, Figure 5
Dr. Austin stated that a citation was needed for the maps. She informed members that the maps
were replaced. Dr. Eckert explained that he contacted staff at the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to obtain higher quality images and was sent three maps of New Mexico that showed the
historic dominant vegetation, the dominant vegetation current at the onset of the grassland
restorative project and progress made to date. He said that the current caption reflects the new
maps. The Board agreed to include the new maps and citation with a new caption provided by
Dr. Eckert describing the three maps.
Page 23, Line 1
During copyediting, the editors will ensure that "binational" rather than "bi-national" is used
consistently.
Page 25, Line 41
During copyediting, the editors will ensure that "It a binational..." is corrected to "It is a
binational..."
Page 26, Line 14
During copyediting, the editors will ensure that "is anticipated..is corrected to
"anticipated...".
Page 26, Line 14
During copyediting, the editors will ensure that "conducts provides..is corrected to "develops
and provides...".
Page 31, Lines 31-37
Ms. Spener said that the current phrasing implies that the states have sole jurisdiction over
surface water management, but jurisdiction varies, depending on the river basin and activities
involved. She read text including suggested changes. A participant asked about the meaning of
the phrase "and may oversee water quality and quantity issues." Ms. Spener replied that the
intent is to avoid an implication that states have sole jurisdiction over these items; she indicated
that she would try to contact the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) regarding
this issue. It was noted that the states issue all the water surface rights as well as surface water
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
5
-------
quality standards, subject to EPA's review. Members discussed the responsibilities of states and
EPA, including the phrase "and may oversee water quality and quantity issues," which was
deemed not necessary to include. Members agreed to the following revised text: "Managing the
supply, quantity and use of scarce border resources is challenging, as governance is fragmented;
whereas in Mexico, the federal government manages surface and groundwater and establishes
water quality standards, in the United States groundwater management lies with the states (and
each state has different regulatory regimes) while surface water management may be addressed
by various state and federal agencies. States administer water rights, set water quality standards
(subject to EPA review), and can develop large-scale water projects."
Pages 32-33, Figures 6 and 7
Mr. Joyce said that Figures 6 and 7 have notes indicating that citations are needed. He asked if
the figures were final, and if those who provided the figures could send citations to him and
Ms. Gantner for inclusion in the Report.
Mr. Niemeyer and Dr. Reed were unsure of the originating source for the Figures. Ms. Gantner
indicated that they were included in original drafts of the section. Ms. Spener said that the figures
came from the IBWC.
Page 34, Lines 25-27
Ms. Spener recommended additional text ("under normal conditions") to clarify water rights.
Members discussed normal versus flood conditions. They also agreed to delete "individual" in
the phrase "individual water rights holders." The sentence was revised to read: "Except in flood
conditions, all U.S. waters of the Rio Grande under both the Convention of 1906 and the 1944
Water Treaty belong to water rights holders, and in the United States, these water rights are
granted by state agencies."
Page 34, Lines 31-34
Ms. Spener suggested that the first bullet under Institutional Challenges be expanded to reference
river waters and irrigation. Members discussed the term "border river" and whether the bullets
were focused on the Colorado River and Rio Grande. They agreed to use the general term
"rivers" in the added text.
The sentence preceding and introducing the bullets was revised to read: "Among the more .
specific consequences of the prioritization of irrigation and municipal needs for the Colorado
River and Rio Grande are:"
The following text was added to the end of the first bullet: "For these rivers, like many in the
Southwestern United States, irrigation accounts for the vast majority of surface water use."
Page 35, Line 42
Dr. Austin said that the text "climactic changes" will be revised to read "climatic changes."
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
-------
Page 35, Line 44
Ms. Spener raised a concern about the characterization of mesquite always in a negative context.
The members agreed, and the text "and mesquite" was deleted from the sentence.
Page 36, Line 3
Ms. Spener noted that the conversions of acre-feet to metric units should be checked. Dr. Austin
stated that during copyediting, all of the conversions between English and metric units will be
verified.
Page 36, Lines 38-40
A participant noted that the sentence does not flow in the paragraph because description is
lacking. Mr. Niemeyer responded that explanatory text was not provided for the example.
Mr. Kevin Bixby suggested combining two bullets titled "Loss of Spawning Habitat and
Riparian Vegetation" and "Reduction of Native Vegetation" to read as: "Loss of Important
Habitat for Fish and Wildlife. Channelization, including straightening of the river and removal
of side channels, has eliminated the slow-water habitats that serve as spawning and nursery
grounds for native fish as well as the off-channel aquatic habitats that provide refugia for fish
when the river is dewatered. Frequent mowing of the river's banks for flood control purposes has
eliminated riparian plant communities that provide important wildlife habitat." Members agreed
with this change.
Page 37, Lines 25-27
Ms. Spener stated the sentence that provides an example of IB WC restoration activities along the
Rio Grande appears to be misplaced. The members agreed to delete it.
Page 37, Lines 29-38
Dr. Austin said that a concern had been raised about the population figures mentioned in the
introductory paragraph to the Tijuana River Watershed section. Dr. Jose Francisco Zamora-
Arroyo and Mr. Mike Vizzier discussed the reference to the populations. Dr. Zamora-Arroyo
suggested that the text "1.5 million in the City of Tijuana" reference Mexican census data. In
response to a concern expressed by Mr. Niemeyer that the 3 million people in San Diego County
might not reside in the Tijuana River Watershed, Dr. Austin suggested modifying the second
sentence in the paragraph to read, "It lies within..." instead of "It is..." Members agreed to the
following changes: the second sentence of the paragraph will begin "It lies within..the total
regional population will be changed to 4.5 million; and the U.S. and Mexican population data
referenced will be 2010 census data describing the San Diego County and City of Tijuana
population numbers.
In addition, Ms. Spener suggested greater specificity about the outflow of the Tijuana River in
the sentence beginning "The river empties.The members agreed that the following text be
added to the end of the sentence: . .at Imperial Beach, California."
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
1
-------
Ms. Spener suggested that the sentence beginning "Key impacts..be modified to include the
ideas of degraded water quality, sediment accumulation. The sentence was changed to read:
"Key impacts include habitat destruction, trash dumping, degraded water quality, sediment
accumulation, off-road vehicle travel, and invasion by exotic plant species."
Ms. Spener also noted progress made on an agreement regarding binational cooperation on
transboundary issues in the Tijuana River Basin. She recommended that the following text be
included to reflect this progress: "The International Boundary and Water Commission, United
States and Mexico, has been working with stakeholders in both countries to address some of
these impacts and has developed a draft agreement establishing a framework for binational
cooperation on transboundary issues in the Tijuana River Basin. This agreement is expected to
be finalized in late 2014 as a Commission minute. The agreement will provide the means for
U.S.-Mexico cooperation on issues related to the watershed with a particular focus 011 trash,
sediment and water quality." A participant suggested that "as a Commission minute" in the
paragraph added above be changed to "as an 1BWC minute." Members agreed with this change.
Ms. Edna Mendoza asked whether the recommendations would need to be updated to reflect the
progress made in the Tijuana River watershed. Dr. Austin said that she will revisit this when the
group has reached the Recommendations section.
Dr. Austin confirmed that the following sentence remain as the last sentence of the section: "Two
programs within the Tijuana River watershed illustrate the benefits and complexities of
ecological restoration along the U.S.-Mexico border." The word "other" will be included to read
"The two other programs..." Members agreed with these changes.
Page 38, Line 3
During the copyediting process, the word "has" will be deleted.
Page 39, Lines 30—37
Dr. Zamora-Arroyo suggested including additional text to describe areas as riparian, add correct
Latin names for native willow and cottonwood, and show the positive results of the brief
connection between the Colorado River and the ocean. Members agreed with the changes. The
paragraph was revised to read "In March-May 2014, the one-time 'Pulse Flow' of 105,392 acre-
feet (130 million cubic meters) of water was released downstream from Morelos Dam to aid the
environment in the Colorado River Delta, primarily the riparian corridor. Under normal
conditions, water is not released downstream from Morelos Dam so the river channel is largely
dry. The Pulse Flow, coupled with 52,696 acre-feet (65 million cubic meters) of water (known as
the Base Flow), for delivery at lower flow rates within Mexico and during a longer period of
time, are expected to provide for the restoration of about 2,300 acres (950 hectares) of riparian
habitat, allowing for seed germination for native willow (Salix goodingii) and cottonwood trees
(Populus fremonti) as well as other native species and water to sustain their growth. On May 15,
2014, the Colorado River recorded a milestone when it connected, for a short period of time,
with the ocean for the first time in years at a location known as the upper part of the estuary,
about 15 miles from the Gulf of California."
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
-------
Page 41, Figure 8
Mr. Joyce referred Board members to the note calling for a map that shows dams mentioned in
the ease study. Ms. Gantner replied that Ms. Spener has forwarded a map for Figure 8.
Page 42, Line 10
During copyediting, a space will be added to correct "1969to" to "1969 to."
Page 46, Box: Research on Water Harvesting Best Practices
Ms. Mendoza commented that an update to the water harvesting case study after the flooding
from Hurricane Odile should be included. The following text was proposed, accepted by the
Board, and included as the second paragraph in the Box: "On September 17, 2014, CLO's San
Bernardino Ranch was impacted by extreme flooding from Hurricane Odile. Many gabions were
damaged, but some held together thanks to stabilization by native vegetation. The ability of trees
and grasses to regenerate diminishes reliance on limited resources for repair. In response, CLO is
investigating natural regenerative strategies that can help restore water harvesting features
impacted by extreme weather events."
Ms. Mendoza agreed to forward separately to Ms. Gantner a picture to include with the case
study. She will send the picture in Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) format along with
photo credit information.
In addition, "in in" will be corrected to "in" during copyediting.
Page 47, Line 37
Ms. Mendoza commented that a description of an Active Management Area is needed and
agreed to provide a description for Board review. The Board agreed with her proposed text, and
the following text was added: "The 1980 Arizona Groundwater Code recognized the need to
aggressively manage the state's finite groundwater resources. To support the growing economy,
areas with heavy reliance on lying groundwater were identified and designated as Active
Management Areas (AMAs). The AMAs are subject to regulation under the Groundwater Code
and carry out programs consistent with its goals, while considering and incorporating a unique
character of each AMA and water users."
Page 49, Line 19
Dr. Austin referred to text changes suggested by Dr. Eckert to emphasize the need for
prioritization and mention urban areas in the first bullet under Recommendation 2, Promote
Ecological Restoration Programs and Projects. Members debated whether to include the term
"large scale" or if the term is incorporated adequately in other recommendations; they agreed to
omit the term "large scale" in the bullet. They also discussed whether to include
"underrepresented" and agreed that it speaks to a federal language of representation. The
agencies listed in the bullet are those most likely to engage in urban work. The text was revised
as follows: "...U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USAGE]) to prioritize ecological restoration
activities in underrepresented areas such as urban environments and transboundary ecosystems."
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9
-------
Page 49, Line 35
Mr. Bixby suggested that the two sentences comprising the fifth bullet under Recommendation 2,
Promote Ecological Restoration Programs and Projects, be separated as they seem unrelated.
He indicated that he preferred that the recovery plan for native Rio Grande fish be given greater
prominence. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that planning could be useful but pointed out the significant
amount of salt cedar to eradicate in the "Forgotten River" stretch. It was noted that
recommendations regarding the forgotten river and revitalizing agreements were provided on
Page 51, Lines 6-12.
Dr. Austin reminded the members that based on comments received, the bullets were written to
provide a general recommendation followed by a specific example. Members agreed to revise the
broader recommendation to include developing metrics and plans, and discussed the meaning of
"developing metrics." They recognized that terms can be used differently depending on the
context. Dr. Eckert explained that metrics refers to goal structuring (i.e., goals with a sequence)
that makes it easier for multiple partners to compare and contrast their interests and capacities.
He stated that metrics also could refer to an attribute—such as a river flow—or an indicator
(e.g., cubic feet per second); an example of a measure could be "3,500 cubic feet per second in
the Rio Grande at peak flow." Dr. Santiago stressed that performance indicators precede metrics
for ecological efforts and should be included.
The fifth bullet was moved to become the second bullet of the section. The beginning of the first
sentence was revised to read: "Develop performance indicators and metrics-based plans for high-
priority species, community, and ecosystem recovery, similar..." The second sentence was
revised to start "As part of this, develop ..."
Mr. Bixby expressed the hope that the recommendations section would include specific
restoration projects or priorities. Dr. Austin stated that changes accepted during this meeting
would be the final revisions to the Report. In addition, recommendations in the Report have been
balanced between general ideas that can be broadly applicable and those specific enough to allow
actions by relevant federal groups; they have never been provided at a project-specific level.
Dr. Santiago noted that the Board does not have the specific knowledge to prioritize projects but
could offer the recommendation that agencies prioritize specific implementation plans along the
border. Members suggested that the introduction of the Recommendations Chapter could provide
encouragement to prioritize multi-agency project work (e.g., the North American Development
Bank) at multiple scales. As an alternative, text could be placed at the beginning of the four
recommendations. Dr. Eckert summarized the potential text: "While individual agencies have
their respective priorities, the Board's recommendations should provide tools for agencies to
consider ecoregional priorities and issues at a higher scale." Dr. Pezzoli said that the
recommendations would: (1) emphasize the need for connectivity (i.e., interagency
collaboration); and (2) recognize the challenges of scale. Dr. Eckert agreed to prepare text to
include in the introduction of the Recommendations Chapter; he drafted text, and members
agreed that the overarching points were captured.
10
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
-------
Page 50, Line 13
Dr. Reed suggested modifying the sub-bullet to include the idea of saved water, which frees up
water for freshwater inflows or recharging aquifers. A discussion ensued about the allocation of
Rio Grande water, and Dr. Reed mentioned that the modification would make the point that
water conservation can serve another goal, namely that of freeing up water for ecological uses.
Dr. Santiago asked whether water reuse projects should be included. Members determined that
inclusion of this language would require consultation with others, and so agreed to not include it.
The text was amended to read: .. to encourage greater investment in water conservation and
make more water available for ecological restoration."
Page 50, Line 14
Dr. Zamora-Arroyo suggested that the restoration projects be characterized as being along the
border. The text was revised to read: "Establish a grant program to support border restoration
projects undertaken by nonfederal entities."
Page 50, Lines 20-21
Ms. Spener asked about the meaning of "aggressive native invasive." A participant provided an
example of creosote, which in New Mexico invaded grasslands because of cattle preferences;
creosote is native but can invade other ecosystems. Mr. Bixby suggested deleting confusing text
in the sentence. The text was revised to read: "Among other actions, create and implement
interagency invasive species strike teams and expand ..."
Page 50, Lines 38-41
Ms. Spener asked whether the reference to the Special Area Management Plan needed
modification because the case study was updated. She also requested a definition of a Special
Area Management Plan. Ms. Mendoza described a concern expressed by Mexican government
officials that activities in the Tijuana River Watershed have implications for Mexico, but Mexico
has been brought in late stages. The Special Area Management Plan should be binational unless
it is truly a domestic only concern. Members discussed whether the bullet could be revised to
reflect the multi-stakeholder group that has led to the new minutes. Mr. Michael Migliori
responded that this plan is focused on coastal areas under local U.S. jurisdiction. Dr. Pezzoli
described the impact given that the water flow is north to south and encouraged the integration of
common goal structures across the border. Several members advocated for the inclusion of the
Special Area Management Plan reference as a way to encourage the IBWC's participation in
such activities. Dr. Austin said that the term "Special Area Management Plan" would be
explained in a footnote and included in the Glossary, and the members agreed.
Page 51, Line 14
The acronym USIBWC was changed to IBWC. Members agreed that the international
commission is meant, not the U.S. Section of the IBWC.
11
-------
Page 51, Lines 21-25
Ms. Spener requested clarification about the Colorado River Pulse Study. She said that a study
concerning the impact of Colorado River flow is underway and is focused on monitoring.
Members agreed to replace the study reference with Minute 319. The text was revised to read:
"... such as has been authorized in the State of Texas, or on the Colorado River pursuant to
Minute 319, are a positive development."
Approval of the Report
Dr. Austin asked for additional concerns, and none were raised. She asked members who did not
agree to approve the Report to indicate such. No members indicated disagreement, and
Dr. Austin stated that the Report was approved.
Next Steps
Editing
Ms. Gantner stated that the edits will be incorporated and sent to Dr. Austin for final review and
approval. Ms. Gantner indicated that Dr. Jennifer Lee, a contractor from The Scientific
Consulting Group, Inc. (SCG), will be serving as a notetaker and will be preparing the meeting
summary. SCG also will be copyediting the Report and preparing it for desktop publishing.
Dr. Austin requested that the copyeditor ensure that the first reference to Minute 319 in the
Recommendations uses the phr,ase "IBWC Minute 319."
Ms. Gantner requested that terms for the Glossary, acknowledgments (title and organization),
and pictures for the Report, including photo credits and permissions, be forwarded to her no later
than Thursday, November 6. The Report is expected to be released in early December 2014.
Mr. Joyce indicated that the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) will be
informed about the Board's approval of the Report, and options for transmission to the President
will be considered. The Board will be informed as discussions and decisions are made. He
recognized the valuable contributions of Board members to the Reports, particularly those who
will not be returning, including Dr. Austin.
Transmittal to the President
Mr. Joyce discussed the official transmittal of the Report to the President, He described ways
that the Report has been transmitted in the past, including in conjunction with the Southwest
Border Interagency Working Group (SBIWG) meeting hosted by the CEQ, as well as roundtable
discussions with the Wilson Center, panel discussions and press conferences. Mr. Joyce said that
ODACMO will ask the CEQ for its preference regarding formal transmission of the Report and
will apprise the Board of the CEQ's recommendation.
12
-------
Other Issues
Membership
Ms. Gantner reminded attendees that the current membership round expires in March 2015 and
encouraged those interested in reappointment to contact her with their resume or to provide
names and contact information for potential candidates. She thanked everyone for their
participation and work during the past 2 years, particularly the Board's 2013 Advice Letter,
which was well received by the CEQ.
In response to a question from Ms. Spener, Ms. Gantner described the appointment process for
federal and state members. The Administrator soon will send letters to heads of the federal
agencies and to the governors of the four border states, who will nominate their respective
representative for the Board. Once the letters have been sent, Ms. Gartner will forward copies to
each of the federal and state members to keep all parties informed. She noted that the letters
request an early December 2014 reply.
Publicity for the Release of the Report
Dr. Pezzoli asked about the process to involve EPA or the Board in press releases or events
regarding the Report. He encouraged that a quotation be made available for a press release.
Mr. Joyce replied that involvement of EPA's Press Office has varied over the years, and that
ODACMO will follow up to determine the level of engagement this year. In recent years, the
Press Office assisted with a press advisory at a minimum. Mr. Joyce expressed appreciation to
Board members for any assistance in promoting the Report and its recommendations within their
organizations. ODACMO will work with Dr. Austin for a quote from her as Chair of the Board.
Adjournment
Dr. Austin thanked the participants for their efforts, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
13
-------
Action Items
4- Dr. Austin will provide an Executive Summary by Sunday, November 2. Members will
review it and provide comments within 1 week of receipt.
Members should send all additional editorial (i.e., nonsubstantive) changes to the Report
by Thursday, November 6.
Members should send entries for the Glossary to Ms. Gantner by Thursday, November 6.
-Y- Ms. Mendoza will forward to Ms. Gantner a picture for the Research on Water
Harvesting Best Practices Box (in JPEG file format) along with photo credit information.
Ms. Mendoza will provide a description of an Active Management Area.
A Current GNEB members who are not representatives of federal or state agencies should
send a message via email to Ms. Gantner if they are interested in being reappointed to the
GNEB.
Ms. Gantner will send to the federal and state GNEB members a copy of the EPA
Administrator's letter to all of the applicable federal and state agencies asking them to
nominate representatives to serve on the GNEB.
A Current federal and state GNEB members who are interested in serving another term on
the Board should follow up with their agencies.
^ Ms. Gantner will notify Board members of the Federal Register notice announcing
openings for membership on the GNEB,
"v* GNEB members should provide Ms. Gantner recommendations of individuals who might
be interested in serving on the GNEB.
SCG will copyedit the Report and check to ensure conversions between English and
metric units are correct.
14 October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
-------
Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Participants
Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal
Members
Diane Austin, Ph.D. (Chair)
Associate Research Anthropologist
Bureau of Applied Research in
Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Timothy Trevino, M.C.P. (Vice-Chair)
Senior Director
Strategic Planning and Agency
Communications
Alamo Area Council of Governments
San Antonio, TX
Gerardo E. Alvidrez
Manager
EH&S Department
Cardinal Health
El Paso, TX
Jose Angei
Assistant Executive Officer
Colorado River Basin Region
California Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Palm Desert, CA
Kevin Bixby
Executive Director
Southwest Environmental Center
Las Cruces, NM
David Henkel
Professor
School of Architecture and Planning
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
Edna A. Mendoza
Director
Office of Border Environmental
Protection
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
Phoeniz, AZ
Jamie Michael
Department Manager
Health and Human Services
Dona Aha County
Las Cruces, NM
Jack Monger
Executive Director
Industrial Environmental Association
San Diego, CA
Luis Olmedo
Executive Director
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
Brawley, CA
Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D.
Director of Field Research, Continuing
Lecturer
Superfund Research Center, Community
Engagement
Urban Studies and Planning Program
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Luis E. Ramirez, M.S.F.S.
President
Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC
Phoenix, AZ
Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.
Conservation Director
Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter
Austin, TX
15
-------
ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX
Sherry Sass
Treasurer
Friends of the Santa Cruz
Tubae, AZ
Mike Viz/.ier
Chief
Hazardous Materials Division
Department of Environmental Health
County of San Diego
San Diego, CA
Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Director
Colorado River Delta Program
Sonoran Institute
Tucson, AZ
Federal Members
Department of Homeland Security
Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED AP
Director
Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Chief Readiness Support Officer
Washington, D.C.
Department of the Interior
Greg Eckert, Ph.D.
Restoration Ecologist
National Park Service
Department of Interior
Fort Collins, CO
Department of Transportation
Sylvia Grijalva
U.S.-Mexico Border Planning Coordinator
Office of Planning
Federal Highway Administration
Phoenix, AZ
International Boundary and Water
Commission
Edward Drusina
Commissioner
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water
Commission
Department of State
El Paso, TX
Acting Designated Federal Officer
Ann-Marie Gantner
Acting Designated Federal Officer
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee
Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal
Alternates
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.
Border Affairs Manager and Colonias
Coordinator
Intergovernmental Relations Division
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Austin, TX
Department of State
Steven Kameny
International Relations Officer
U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D.C.
16
-------
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E.
Chairman
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Austin, TX
Federal Alternates
Department of Commerce
Michael Migliori
Estuarine Reserves Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Department of Commerce
Silver Spring, MD
Department of Health and Human
Services
Lori Navarrete, M.P.H.
Binational Operations Coordinator
U.S. Section Office
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission
Office of Global Affairs
El Paso, TX
Department of Transportation
Camille Mittelholtz
Deputy Director
Office of Safety, Energy and Environment
Office of Transportation Policy
Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
International Boundary and Water
Commission
Sally Spener
Foreign Affairs Officer
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water
Commission
Department of State
El Paso, TX
EPA Participants
Mark Joyce
Associate Director
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee
Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Toni Rousey
Acting Associate Director
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee
Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Other Participants
Diana Jimenez Trejo, M.A.
Consulado General de Mexico
Embassy of Mexico
New York, NY
Contractor Support
Jennifer Lee, Ph.D.
Science Writer/Editor
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Gaithersburg, MD
October 30, 2014, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17
-------
St' J"-:r -• "—
Environmental Advisors Across Borders
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Agenda
Thursday, October 30, 2014
11:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (EDT)
Call-in: 866-299-3188, conference code: 2022330068
• Ann-Marie Gantner
Acting Designated Federal Officer
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
• Diane Austin
Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
• Tim Trevino
Vice-Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
• Denise Benjarnin-Sirmons
Director
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
• Board Introductions
• Diane Austin
Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
• Tim Trevino
Vice-Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
11:00 a.m.
Welcome and Introductions
11:15 a.m.
Overview of Agenda
11:25 a.m.
Public Comments
11:45 a.m.
Discussion and Approval of Draft Report
2:30 p.m.
Next Steps
• Editing
• Transmittal to President
2:45 p.m.
Other Issues
• Membership
3:00 p.m.
Adjournment
-------
Gantner, Ann-Marie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Austin, Diane E - (daustin)
Tuesday, December 23, 2014 12:21 AM
Gantner, Ann-Marie
October meeting summary
Dear Ann-Marie,
I have reviewed and approve the summary of the October 30 meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board.
Sincerely,
Diane Austin, Chair
1
-------
These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed during this meeting.
Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created by the Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative Act of 1992. The board is responsible for providing advice to the President and
Congress on environmental and infrastructure issues and needs within the states
contiguous to Mexico. The findings and recommendations of the Board do not represent
the views of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved or
disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
12/23/2014
Diane Austin
Date
------- |