Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting
August 6, 2013
12:00  -  4:00 p.m.
EPA East Building
1201 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.

Call-In:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Conference Code:<PHONE_NUMBER>#
Adobe Connect: https://epa.connectsolutions.com/gnebmeetingroom/
Final Meeting Summary
Welcome and Introductions
Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB; Mark Joyce, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (ODACMO); Ann-Marie Gantner, ODACMO
Dr. Diane Austin thanked the GNEB members for their efforts and for participating in the meeting. Mr. Mark Joyce also expressed his gratitude to the Board members for their service. He reminded them that significant work remains to be done to complete the advice letter by the end of the calendar year. Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson welcomed the GNEB members as well. She expressed EPA's appreciation for their efforts and recognized that the Board is eager to complete the advice letter in a timely manner.
Ms. Jones-Jackson informed the Board members of recent organizational changes affecting the office formerly named OFACMO. She is assisting in briefing the new management of the office, which now is titled the Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (ODACMO), about GNEB's role and activities. Ms. Jones-Jackson assured the GNEB members that the activities of the Board will continue to be highly valued by EPA under the new organizational plan.
Ms. Jones-Jackson took the opportunity to recognize the efforts of Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner, who directs the logistical arrangements for the GNEB meetings. Ms. Gantner then conducted the roll call.
Dr. Austin asked Ms. Jones-Jackson for more details about the new organizational structure. Ms. Jones-Jackson responded that OFACMO merged with another EPA office on July 28, 2013, to form ODACMO. There will be two arms of the new office: one will be charged with encouraging EPA staff across the Agency to engage in activities that promote diversity and inclusion, and the other will be responsible for the activities that previously were under the jurisdiction of OFACMO, for which Ms. Jones-Jackson served as Acting Director. Denise Benjamin-Sirmons, formerly Director for Diversity, Advisory Committee Management, and Outreach in the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), is now the Director of ODACMO. Ms. Jones-Jackson noted that ODACMO will have a larger staff, but it is unclear, however, what effect the reorganization will have on the resources that will be available to support face-to-face meetings for the GNEB.
Overview of the Agenda
Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB
Dr. Austin thanked EPA for supporting the GNEB and providing minutes for the Board meetings, as well as the contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. (SCG), for their assistance with the minutes. She reviewed the "notes" and "chat" features of Adobe(R) Connect, reminding participants to raise their virtual hands for recognition by the Chair. She stated that during the meeting discussion, Ms. Allie Wechsler, a University of Arizona staff member, will be typing in notes during the meeting and that these will be available to the GNEB members, along with the minutes prepared by SCG and the chat transcript.
Dr. Austin reviewed the agenda for the meeting. She then asked the Workgroup chairs to present a 10- to 15-minute summary of their Workgroup's progress. Dr. Austin indicated that following these presentations, participants would have the opportunity to ask questions of the chairs.
Overview of Workgroup Progress
Workgroup #1: Define Ecological Restoration and Why It Is Important
Greg Eckert, Workgroup Chair
Dr. Austin introduced Dr. Greg Eckert, leader of the Workgroup charged with developing a definition for ecological restoration. Dr. Eckert reported that the Workgroup members had met several times via teleconference.
The group based its discussions on the definition of ecological restoration that is used by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER): "the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed." The Workgroup's goal was to develop a definition that would be inclusive, recognizing that there are multiple criteria and standards for ecological restoration. Dr. Eckert observed that the SER definition emphasizes active management and focuses on natural resources that have been damaged or destroyed. By using the broad term "ecosystem," it includes non-wilderness areas such as agricultural lands and the urban environment.
The Workgroup explored how the nature of an ecological restoration effort is shaped by values that are personal -- and therefore subjective -- and collective, including valuation of ecological services and cultural traditions. The range of values was depicted by the Workgroup in a diagram. Dr. Eckert explained that there is a continuum of practice for ecological restoration that arises from the continuum of values. He suggested that the Board discuss crafting a definition that addresses this continuum of values.
The Workgroup tabulated potential reasons for conducting an ecological restoration, as well as associated restoration activities to address these initiating factors. Examples of reasons for ecological restoration projects include legacy land uses that damaged natural resources, channelized waterways and established invasive species. Sample responses are removing the source of toxic chemical inputs (i.e., stopping the "stabbing"), restoring sinuousity, removing exotic species, reducing nutrient levels, road removal, removal of livestock and/or excess native herbivores, and thinning forests in which fire exclusion has been practiced. Dr. Eckert noted that monetary resources for ecological restoration are finite, however, necessitating an approach that sets an ecosystem on a trajectory for recovery rather than restoring every species. He provided the example of changing a site's soil or geomorphology to attract beneficial species.
Dr. Eckert stated that the SER emphasizes that ecological restoration efforts should be self-sustaining. Because of global climate change, it would not be appropriate to focus on restoring climate change-vulnerable species. Flood and fire regimes also likely will evolve due to climate change.
The Workgroup is endeavoring to characterize the reasons that ecological restoration is particularly relevant to the Border region. The Border region includes extensive protected areas that provide ecological services and have high levels of ecological integrity. There also are areas managed for ecological services such as forestry. In addition, growing urban areas, which rely on ecological services, are included in the Border region. Dr. Keith Pezzoli (not in attendance) emphasized that the ongoing economic recovery and population growth on the Mexican side of the Border increasingly will depend on ecological services such as water. To characterize the relevance of ecological restoration to the Border region, Dr. Eckert suggested as a discussion point that ecological restoration is important to the Border area because the integrity of natural resources -- and therefore repair of damaged resources -- supports the dominant values and activities of the Border zone.
Workgroup #2: Review of Border-Specific Programs and Where Ecological Restoration Resonates, Is Incorporated, Etc.
Cyrus Reed, Workgroup Chair
Dr. Austin introduced Dr. Cyrus Reed, leader of the Workgroup charged with reviewing the ways in which ecological restoration resonates with and is incorporated in Border-specific programs. Dr. Reed reported that the Workgroup members had met only once, and as a result, the group's work is not finished. For example, the Workgroup plans to review EPA's Border 2020 program in greater depth.
Dr. Reed indicated that the Workgroup had reviewed Border-specific efforts by EPA and other federal agencies, as well as larger federal landscape efforts, to determine whether they addressed ecological restoration issues. The Workgroup members concluded that although many programs included ecological restoration, it generally is not a primary focus of these efforts. In addition, state, local and federal agency cooperative efforts usually do not extend beyond the U.S.-Mexico Border. Dr. Reed suggested that GNEB investigate strategies to engage Mexico.
Dr. Reed noted that among federal agencies, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is a leading agency in ecological restoration. The DOI's efforts focus on large landscape restoration projects such as the America's Great Outdoors (AGO) Initiative and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Rapid Ecological Assessments. The BLM's ecological assessments include three areas within the Border region: the Sonoran Desert, Madrean Archipelago and Chihuahuan Desert.
Dr. Reed observed that there is overlap between the programs that Workgroup #2 identified and the projects highlighted by Workgroup #3, indicating that there are opportunities for collaboration between the two Workgroups. Because the missions of the federal agencies that undertake ecological restoration projects are highly variable, Dr. Reed also suggested the need for his Workgroup to confer with Workgroup #1. For example, ecological restoration might be part of a State Department program that is focused on security.
Workgroup #3: Review of Ecological Restoration Efforts With Federal Involvement
Stephen Niemeyer, Workgroup Chair
Dr. Austin introduced Mr. Stephen Niemeyer, leader of the Workgroup reviewing ecological restoration efforts with federal involvement. Mr. Niemeyer stated that his Workgroup had compiled an extensive list of ecological restoration projects in the Border region, expanding the scope of the compilation beyond those that had federal involvement. He indicated that the rationale behind the expanded scope was that most ecological restoration efforts are so large that they require collaboration among multiple entities.
Mr. Niemeyer observed that there is a wide range of projects in the Workgroup's compilation, which makes it difficult to summarize the results. The projects' geographic locations span the entire Border region, extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Although the list already is extensive, Mr. Niemeyer asked the Board members to review it for omitted projects that should be included. In particular, Dr. Eckert had pointed out that it would be valuable to consider Brownfields restorations.
Workgroup #4: Review of Data/Tools/Performance Indicators/Models
Dave Anderson, Workgroup Chair
Dr. Austin introduced Mr. Dave Anderson, leader of the Workgroup that is charged with researching data, tools, performance indicators and models for ecological restoration. Mr. Anderson reported that the Workgroup had met twice via teleconference and thanked the members of the Workgroup for their participation.
Mr. Anderson noted that the Workgroup's charge covers a broad range of topics. The Workgroup decided to focus its efforts by listing types of data, tools, performance indicators and models used for ecological restoration; providing examples of the models or tools; and presenting examples of their use by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), federal agencies and other entities. By compiling and organizing this list, the Workgroup had sought to determine trends that would suggest policy recommendations that the GNEB might offer.
The Workgroup determined that the data collected to support ecological restoration were highly variable, including data that differ geographically and temporally, as well as by habitat (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic), collection purpose, scale and quality. The Workgroup identified repositories for data collected in Texas, but needs to expand its analysis to include other states in the Border region. In regard to data, Mr. Anderson described potential advice letter recommendations for allocating resources, developing shared data clearinghouses, performing data gap analyses, reviewing data quality, and ensuring a bi-national approach to developing and sharing data.
Mr. Anderson described the table of tools and models used in ecological restoration that was assembled by Workgroup member Dr. Ivonne Santiago. Dr. Santiago identified tools and models that are diverse in methodology and purpose. Mr. Anderson mentioned potential advice letter recommendations pertaining to tools and models: conducting long-term studies to better understand the enduring trends that are important to ecological restoration; incorporating the human element; and closing the gap between theory and application, for example, addressing conceptual academic models for which no correlated tools exist.
Performance metrics can be used to define ecological baseline conditions, determine efficacy of and analyze trends in ecological restoration programs, evaluate ambient conditions, and measure interaction between ecological and human systems. Mr. Anderson stated that the Workgroup had developed a list of metrics but would like more examples from other GNEB members. The Workgroup drafted some potential advice letter recommendations: leverage the EPA Border 2020 program's framework to develop performance indicators for ecological restoration; develop performance metrics that apply for a broad range of purposes; and ensure that performance metrics are compatible with available tools and models.
Mr. Anderson welcomed input from the GNEB members about additional data inventories, tools, performance metrics and models that should be included in the draft advice letter.
General Question and Answer Session About Workgroup Progress
Dr. Austin, Workgroup Chairs, GNEB Members
Dr. Austin thanked the members of the Workgroups for their contributions, appreciating the variety of sources that they consulted and issues that they raised. She opened the floor for questions and comments related to the progress of the Workgroups.
Workgroup #1
The Board members discussed changes to the definition of ecological restoration. Mr. Kevin Bixby suggested adding the loss of a species to the definition. He agreed with the concept of natural forces being allowed to complete the restoration of ecosystems but was concerned that this might lead to inaction. The Board members agreed that the goals of an ecological restoration should not be defined by historical conditions.
The GNEB members debated the regulatory framework that supports ecological restoration as it applies to the definition. It was pointed out that ecological restoration lacks a specific legal mandate. The Endangered Species Act often is used as the legal basis for ecological restoration projects, and as a result, these projects are designed to protect the welfare of particular at-risk species. Unfortunately, the species-by-species approach that this methodology engenders can limit restoration efforts. A landscape approach such as that taken in DOI's recent efforts, as well as projects sponsored by NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, represents an alternative. Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman suggested that establishing a regulatory framework for ecological restoration be included as one of GNEB's recommendation.
Workgroup #2
The lack of focus on ecological restoration in programs sponsored by federal agencies was discussed. Mr. Bixby suggested possible reasons for the dearth of federal programs that focus on ecological restoration: lack of authority, lack of awareness and ecological restoration not falling under the purview of the agency's mission. Mr. Niemeyer stated that the decision to exclude DOI from participation in Border 2020 was made at the federal level; some of DOI's current programs, however, are related to the mission of Border 2020. He suggested that the Board could recommend that DOI become involved in Border 2020. Mr. Jock Whittlesey commented that the legal basis for Border 2012 (the predecessor to Border 2020), which was the 1983 Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (the La Paz Agreement), focused on remediation; therefore, Border 2012 (and the successor Border 2020) probably was not considered relevant to DOI's mission. Related to EPA's future role in ecological restoration, Mr. Whittlesey proposed that the GNEB suggest that ecological restoration be added to the goals in EPA's mission statement. He argued that this change would not impose an additional financial burden on the Agency but only would alter the way in which existing activities were categorized.
The GNEB members discussed the scope of the Workgroup's compilation of border-specific programs. In regard to specific projects to add, Dr. Austin reported that Dr. Pezzoli had asked the Workgroup to include the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI) in its compilation. Mr. Bixby asked about the relevance of nonfederal efforts such as the Sky Island Alliance. Dr. Reed responded that the funding sources of projects often were difficult to determine, but in general, ecological restoration projects require the engagement of a range of stakeholders, including a federal component. He added that even in cases in which there is no direct federal involvement, programs initiated by NGOs might serve as models for federal efforts. Mr. Joyce recognized that noteworthy state, local and private efforts exist; because of the GNEB's charter, however, a necessary criterion for inclusion of examples should be the existence of a federal connection. Dr. Austin reminded the Workgroups that the examples selected should support the arguments that will be presented in the advice letter.
Workgroup #3
The GNEB members discussed the Workgroup's list of ecological restoration projects. Dr. Eckert indicated that two examples of ecological restoration that might be added are the Coronado National Forest restoration and the Natural Resources Conservation Service's financial assistance program to plant native species and remove invasive plants on private lands. Dr. Reed proposed adding the ecological restoration efforts on the Upper Rio Grande. Commissioner Edward Drusina lauded the Workgroup for successfully capturing projects that have had a significant impact. He suggested, however, that it would be beneficial to provide a more complete picture of restoration efforts in the Border region by including more small projects that have adopted innovative approaches. Dr. Austin suggested the need for more projects describing the restoration of agricultural areas.
Workgroup #4
The Board members discussed the inclusion of metrics in ecological restoration projects. Several participants suggested that the GNEB recommend that Border 2020 and the U.S.-México Border Health Commission (BHC) consider the use of ecological restoration metrics as a criterion in future requests for proposals (RFPs). There was concern among some of the Board members, however, about the impacts of requiring the use of metrics in small-scale ecological restoration projects. Ms. Edna Mendoza noted that in Border 2020, many of the key partners are state and local governments that might not have the resources to perform the necessary measurements. Dr. Austin added that in general, Border 2020 funds small-scale projects with a maximum budget of $100,000. Ms. Alhelí Baños-Keener clarified that although Border 2020 projects receive some funding from EPA, they primarily are state- and local-run projects that originate from input by local communities and governments. The Board recognized that the use of ecological restoration metrics might apply best to large-scale, broad projects.
In regard to gaps in the information that the Workgroup collected, Dr. Santiago noted that many tools are not linked to models, and the geographic scope of many tools and models does not span the Border. Mr. Anderson asked for assistance from the GNEB members in identifying examples of projects in which tools, models or metrics have been used.
Discussion of Advice Letter Priorities and Workgroup Reorganization
Advice Letter Priorities
Dr. Austin identified five general issues for the GNEB members to consider in drafting the advice letter: (1) describing the legal framework for ecological restoration; (2) deciding on the level of information to provide and other issues related to lists and tables; (3) determining criteria for case selection; (4) identifying which information to include in the advice letter versus the 16th Report; and (5) developing recommendations for the advice letter.
The legal framework for ecological restoration was the first topic of discussion. Mr. Niemeyer stressed the importance of issues raised by the Border Fence. He stated that the Border Fence made it more difficult for ecological restoration projects to address transboundary problems such as ocelot habitat protection and allocation of water rights. Dr. Pohlman responded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had invested significantly in projects to restore habitats in the Border region. Although exempt from the requirement, DHS performs assessments similar to those mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She agreed that there have been missteps in the past, but stated that DHS has become proactive about environmental issues. For example, the Department provides Border Patrol Officers with extensive training on interacting with indigenous populations and wildlife and educates them about the Endangered Species Act. DHS also installed panels in the Border Fence to allow passage for ocelots. Commissioner Drusina expressed appreciation for the efforts made by DHS to communicate about and address the problems that were created initially by DHS activities in the Border region. He recommended including an account of these initial difficulties and corrective measures in the GNEB's advice letter, as well as a description of the ecological restoration projects that have been conducted by DHS. Dr. Austin proposed including in the GNEB's advice letter a discussion of the legal framework that prompts ecological restoration projects, gaps in the legal framework, legal issues that are specific to ecological restoration in the Border region (e.g., waivers of NEPA assessment requirements) and the approaches taken by federal agencies that are specific to Border region ecological restoration activities (e.g., conducting assessments similar to those required by NEPA). The GNEB members will need to decide whether to add the legal analysis to the charge of an existing Workgroup or create a new group to address it.
Dr. Austin also asked the GNEB members to consider the effective presentation and level of detail for the case studies and examples that will be included in the advice letter. The review of project and program descriptions by the Board members, who collectively have broad expertise, will help ensure that descriptions are precise and accurate. Mr. Whittlesey favored limiting the number of examples that are included in the main body of the advice letter and including additional examples in appendices as necessary. Dr. Eckert and Dr. Austin proposed subdividing listed examples by category (e.g., ecological restoration projects located in federally protected areas vs. those on privately owned lands, coarse- vs. fine-scale metrics; restoration of "natural" areas/agricultural lands/urban areas). Dr. Santiago noted that she categorized the models and tools in the compilation that she developed for Workgroup #4.
The Board members discussed the selection criteria for the case studies and examples in the advice letter. Dr. Austin suggested that examples included in the lists be policy-specific. In addition, she noted that the Workgroups have compiled case studies of successful ecological restoration programs and projects. She suggested that it would be instructive to include examples in which ecological restoration efforts went awry. U.S.-Mexico collaborations might be another category. Dr. Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo cited Minute 319, which establishes cooperative measures to address flow in the Colorado River Basin, as an example of collaboration to include in the letter. Dr. Austin urged the Board to present a balanced and nuanced discussion of controversial topics such as the Border Fence and transboundary allocation of water rights.
Dr. Austin charged the GNEB members with considering the content of the advice letter versus that of the report. The Board needs to determine which topics are pressing and should be discussed in the letter and which issues require more investigation by the Board before it is prepared to offer its recommendations. Mr. Whittlesey suggested that in revising the draft advice letter, the Board should focus on refining its recommendations rather than gathering more data. Dr. Santiago agreed that the Board has gathered sufficient data to substantiate the recommendations that it will offer in the final advice letter. Dr. Austin advocated supporting each recommendation in the advice letter with only one or two examples.
Dr. Austin reminded the GNEB members that its recommendations need to be actionable; the Board needs to decide the level of detail to include in the recommendations. Those of Workgroup #4 are the most specific. Mr. Niemeyer stated that Workgroup #3 also developed specific recommendations that were not in the draft advice letter but were outlined in the Workgroup's meeting notes. Dr. Austin suggested that the advice letter include the recommendations developed by Workgroup #4, as well as recommendations on best practices and legal gaps.
The definition of ecological restoration for inclusion in the advice letter was discussed. Dr. Eckert proposed expanding it so that it applies more explicitly to the needs and ecological restoration activities of the Border region.
Workgroup Reorganization
The GNEB members discussed merging Workgroups #2 and #3. Dr. Austin proposed that the members of the two Workgroups decide among themselves how to delegate upcoming activities and leadership responsibilities.
Discussion of the GNEB Advice Letter and Report
Timeline
The GNEB members discussed the review of the draft advice letter prior to the September meeting. Several Board members stressed that sufficient time is needed for review at the management level and by legal counsel prior to the September meeting.
The GNEB members and EPA staff members discussed a timeline that would allow sufficient time for review and enable the Board to complete the advice letter by the end of calendar year 2013. Mr. Joyce proposed rescheduling the next meeting of the Board, which currently is slated for October 1, to the week of September 23. October 1 coincides with the first day of the federal government's fiscal year, and there is the possibility of a government shutdown. He asked Ms. Gantner to poll the GNEB members about their availability to attend a 4-hour Board meeting during the week of September 23.
Dr. Austin expressed concern that no tribal representatives had attended this meeting and asked for assistance in ensuring that this is not the case for upcoming meetings. Dr. Austin agreed to summarize the proposed revised timeline for the advice letter and distribute it via email to the GNEB members.
Next Steps
Mr. Joyce emphasized the need for the Board to prepare a working draft of the advice letter in time for discussion at its next meeting. At that meeting, the Board would either approve the draft pending editorial corrections or identify any significant issues that need to be addressed. If the draft is not ready for approval at the September meeting, there will be time to schedule a meeting in November for the Board to approve a revised draft. The Board members agreed to this approach for revising the advice letter.
Dr. Austin asked the Workgroup chairs about the written material that they anticipate providing for the advice letter. Mr. Anderson stated that Workgroup #4's proposed recommendations for the advice letter are not likely to change from those in the draft letter.
Mr. Joyce asked the GNEB members whether they prefer to continue using the Workgroup format or want to form a writing team to draft the advice letter. Mr. Niemeyer suggested that it would be most efficient for a small group to draft the letter. Ms. Sally Spener nominated Mr. Niemeyer and Dr. Reed to draft a letter for review by the Workgroup members. Mr. Anderson offered his assistance. Dr. Pohlman volunteered to write the section related to DHS Border region activities. Ms. Mendoza stressed the importance of including examples from geographic areas spanning the Border region. Dr. Austin proposed that the advice letter be short and not include an appendix of examples. Mr. Joyce stated that there is precedence for including a reference list as an appendix to the advice letter.
Mr. Niemeyer proposed a process for drafting the advice letter. The writing team will meet to develop an outline that will serve as a framework. On August 19, the team will circulate the framework to the GNEB members for comment. Ms. Spener suggested scheduling a teleconference for those GNEB members who are likely to have substantive feedback on the framework. All GNEB members would be welcome to attend. The feedback meeting will be scheduled by Ms. Gantner via a Doodle poll for the week of August 19. The GNEB members should provide comments to the writing team by August 30. Based on the comments and the feedback session, the writing team will prepare a draft advice letter that will be distributed to the GNEB members for review on September 10.
Other Issues
Spanish Translation of the 15th Report
Dr. Austin informed the GNEB members that the first draft of the Spanish translation of the 15th Report of the GNEB to the President and Congress of the United States has been completed. The translation currently is undergoing review. Once the review is completed and the Spanish version is finalized, it will be made available online. Dr. Austin indicated that she will notify the Board members when the Spanish report is finalized.
Public Comments
There were no oral public comments provided at this meeting, and there were no written public comments received by the DFO prior to this meeting.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:28 p.m. The meeting teleconference line remained open until 4:00 p.m., however, to offer members of the public the opportunity to provide comments.
Action Items
Board members should review the list of ecological restoration projects in the draft advice letter for omitted projects that should be included, particularly the following: Brownfields restorations, small-scale projects, projects located on land formerly used for agriculture, and ecological restoration efforts on the Upper Rio Grande.
Board members should review the lists of data inventories, tools, performance metrics and models in the draft advice letter for additional entries that should be included, particularly data from states other than Texas.
Mr. Anderson and members of Workgroup #4 will consult with the GNEB members to identify projects that might serve as case studies for the development of data inventories, as well as the use of tools, performance metrics and models.
Dr. Austin will summarize the proposed revised timeline for the advice letter and distribute it via email to the GNEB members.
Ms. Gantner will poll the GNEB members about their availability to attend a meeting to provide feedback on the advice letter framework during the week of August 19.
Ms. Gantner will poll the GNEB members about their availability to attend a Board meeting during the week of September 23.
All of the GNEB members, including tribal representatives, should endeavor to attend the upcoming Board meetings.
                   Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
                             Meeting Participants

Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal Members
Diane Austin, Ph.D. (Chair)
Associate Research Anthropologist
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Dave Anderson, P.E., D.WRE, CFM, CPESC
Client Service Manager
CDM Smith, Inc.
Austin, TX
Jose Angel
Assistant Executive Officer
Colorado River Basin Region
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Palm Desert, CA
Kevin Bixby
Executive Director
Southwest Environmental Center
Las Cruces, NM
Edna A. Mendoza
Director
Office of Border Environmental Protection
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Phoeniz, AZ
Jamie Michael
Department Manager
Health and Human Services
Dona Ana County
Las Cruces, NM
Jack Monger
Executive Director
Industrial Environmental Association
San Diego, CA
Luis E. Ramírez, MSFS
President
Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC
Phoenix, AZ
Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.
Conservation Director
Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter
Austin, TX
Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX
Timothy Treviño
Senior Director of Strategic Planning & Agency Communications
Alamo Area Council of Governments
San Antonio, TX
Erin Ward
Director
U.S.-Mexico Border Projects
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute
Las Cruces, NM
Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Director
Colorado River Delta Program
Sonoran Institute
Tucson, AZ

Federal Members
Department of Health and Human Services
Jose Luis Velasco
Executive Director
U.S. Section
U.S.-México Border Health Commission
Office of Global Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
El Paso, TX
Department of Homeland Security
Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED, AP
Director
Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Chief Readiness Support Officer
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.
Department of the Interior
Greg Eckert, Ph.D.
Restoration Ecologist
National Park Service
Department of Interior
Fort Collins, CO
International Boundary and Water Commission
Edward Drusina
Commissioner
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
El Paso, TX

Designated Federal Officer
Mark Joyce
Acting Designated Federal Officer
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal Alternate
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.
Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator
Intergovernmental Relations Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Austin, TX

Federal Alternates
Department of Commerce-NOAA
Alison Krepp
NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Commerce
Silver Spring, MD
Department of Health and Human Services
Lorraine Navarrete
Binational Operations Coordinator
U.S. Section
U.S.-México Border Health Commission
Office of Global Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
El Paso, TX
Department of State
Jock Whittlesey
International Relations Officer
U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D.C.
Department of Transportation
Camille Mittelholtz
Acting Director
Office of Safety, Energy and Environment
Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
International Boundary and Water Commission
Sally Spener
Foreign Affairs Officer
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
El Paso, TX

EPA Regional Office Contacts
Region 6
Gina Weber
U.S-Mexico Border Program
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Dallas, TX
Region 9
Alhelí Baños-Keener
U.S.-Mexico Border Specialist
U.S. EPA, Region 9
San Diego, CA

EPA Participants
Ann-Marie Gantner
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Cynthia Jones-Jackson
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Stephanie McCoy
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Steven J. Weber
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Other Participants
Casey Dietrich
CQ Transcriptions
Washington, D.C.
Hector Dominguez
Information Technology Specialist
U.S. Section
U.S.-México Border Health Commission
Office of Global Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
El Paso, TX
Allie Wechsler
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Contractor Support
Jennifer G. Lee, Ph.D.
Science Writer/Editor
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Gaithersburg, MD

                       Good Neighbor Environmental Board

                                    Agenda
                            Tuesday, August 6, 2013
                        12:00 p.m.  -  4:00 p.m. (EDT)
              Call-In:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Conference Code:<PHONE_NUMBER>

12:00 p.m.	Welcome and Introductions
                     *                   Mark Joyce, Associate Director
                  GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer
                     *                   Cynthia Jones-Jackson
                  U.S. EPA Office of Diversity Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
                     *                   Diane Austin, Chair
                  Good Neighbor Environmental Board
                     *                   Board Members

12:10  -  12:20	Overview of Agenda
                     *                   Diane Austin, Chair
		Good Neighbor Environmental Board

12:20  -  1:00	Overview of Workgroup Progress
                     *                   Workgroup #1  -  Define Ecological Restoration and Why It Is Important
                  Greg Eckert, Workgroup Chair

                     *                   Workgroup #2  -  Review of Border-Specific Programs and Where Ecological Restoration Resonates, Is Incorporated, Etc.
            Cyrus Reed, Workgroup Chair

                     *                   Workgroup #3  -  Review of Ecological Restoration Efforts With Federal Involvement
            Steve Niemeyer, Workgroup Chair

                     *                   Workgroup #4  -  Review of Data/Tools/Performance Indicators/Models
            Dave Anderson, Workgroup Chair

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

3:00  -  3:40	Discussion of GNEB Advice Letter and Report
               * Timeline
               * Next steps

3:40  -  3:50 	Other issues
               * Spanish Translation of 15th Report

3:50  -  4:00	Public Comments

4:00		Adjournment


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8557-8558]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03892]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82753; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section
VI.A. of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule To Clarify the Exchange's
Billing Practices With Respect to Permit Fees

February 21, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 13, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section VI.A. of the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule to clarify the Exchange's billing practices with
respect to permit fees when a member organization must transfer a
permit due to the fact that the individual who is designated as the
permit holder on the existing permit ceases to be primarily affiliated
with the member organization.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

NASDAQ PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule

    THE EXCHANGE CALCULATES FEES ON A TRADE DATE BASIS.
    POLICY FOR AMENDING BILLING INFORMATION: CORRECTIONS SUBMITTED
AFTER TRADE DATE AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN INVOICE BY THE
EXCHANGE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE EXCHANGE IN WRITING AND MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. ONLY MEMBERS MAY SUBMIT TRADE
CORRECTIONS.
    ALL BILLING DISPUTES MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE EXCHANGE IN WRITING
AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. ALL DISPUTES MUST
BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF A BILLING
INVOICE, EXCEPT FOR DISPUTES CONCERNING NASDAQ PSX FEES, PROPRIETARY
DATA FEED FEES AND CO-LOCATION SERVICES FEES. THE EXCHANGE CALCULATES
FEES ON A TRADE DATE BASIS. ONLY MEMBERS MAY SUBMIT BILLING DISPUTES.
* * * * *

VI. Membership Fees

A. Permit and Registration Fees

* * * * *
     Permit Fees: The Exchange has established the date of
notification of termination of a permit as the date that permit fee
billing will cease. The Exchange will not bill a member organization
for more than one monthly permit fee if the member organization
transfers an existing permit to another valid permit holder that is
primarily affiliated with the member organization, as set forth in
Rules 908(f) and 910, provided that the transfer from one permit holder
to another occurs within the same business day. Additionally, a permit
holder will be billed only one monthly permit fee if the holder
transfers from one member organization to another previously unrelated
member organization as a result of a merger, partial sale or other
business combination during a monthly permit fee period in order to
avoid double billing in the month the merger or business combination
occurred.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to clarify the Exchange's practices
with respect to the billing of permit fees when a member organization
must transfer a permit due to the fact that the individual who is
designated as the permit holder ceases to be primarily affiliated with
the member organization.
    Rule 910(f)(1) of the Exchange's Rules states that an organization
wishing to obtain and maintain its status on the Exchange as a member
organization must, among other things, be ``duly qualified by a permit
holder who is primarily affiliated with such organization for purposes
of nominating as provided in the By-Laws.'' If the individual who is
designated as the permit holder ceases to be primarily affiliated with
the member organization, then the member organization's permit
terminates. If the member organization wishes to maintain its trading
privileges on the Exchange, it must apply to transfer the permit to
another affiliated individual as the permit holder, as is permitted by
Rule 908(h).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 908(h) provides that ``[a] permit may not be
transferred by lease, sale, gift, involuntary transfer, or any other
means or as collateral to secure any obligation, except that a
permit may be transferred within the permit holder's member
organization . . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section VI.A. of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, which sets forth
the fees that the Exchange charges for permits, does not state whether
the Exchange will bill a member organization for one or two monthly
permit fees in the foregoing scenario. The existing practice of the
Exchange is to bill the member organization for only one permit fee,
provided that the member organization applies to transfer its permit
between permit holders on the same business day. The Exchange believes
that this billing practice is fair because the number of permits that
the member organization maintains does not change as the result of the
transfer. Instead, the transfer occurs due to the Exchange's
requirement in its membership rules that the permit holder be an
individual who is primarily affiliated with the member organization.
The Exchange proposes to codify its billing practice in Section VI.A.
of its Pricing Schedule so as to eliminate any ambiguity and confusion
on this issue going forward.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ To avoid being billed for a second monthly permit fee, the
Exchange proposes to require member organizations to apply to
transfer their permits between permit holders on the same business
day as a means of differentiating the pertinent scenario from others
in which member organizations apply for new or additional permits
long after certain of its other permits terminate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the

objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposal codifies
the Exchange's existing billing practices so as to clarify that the
Exchange will bill a member organization for only one monthly permit
fee when the organization transfers one of its permits during a month
to a new permit holder within its organization if the individual then
listed as the permit holder ceases to be primarily affiliated with the
organization. This clarification is just and equitable and it protects
investors and the public interest because it prohibits the Exchange
from double billing when a member organization applies to transfer a
permit between affiliated individuals to maintain the validity of that
permit in accordance with the Exchange's membership rules. The proposed
change will also apply to all member organizations equally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is not intended to
nor will it have any discernable impact on competition. The Exchange
merely intends to codify its existing billing practices and to clarify
them in a manner that prevents double billing of member organizations
for monthly permit fees.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that
waiving the operative delay will allow it to immediately dispel any
confusion that may exist among member organizations regarding the
Exchange's billing practices for transferred permits. The Exchange also
notes that the proposed rule change will ensure that member
organizations are billed fairly for their permits and for maintaining
their permits in accordance with the Exchange's membership rules. Based
on the foregoing, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2018-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-17 and should be submitted on
or before March 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03892 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P