Jared Larsen From: Wesley Williams Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 4:51 PM Cc: Rebecca Schimsa Subject: Readout: Policy Call on NEPA Reform Attachments: NEPA Regulation Summary [3].pdf; CEQ Comment CEQ Comment Letter[2] [2].docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Readout of Policy Call National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reform Thursday, February 20,2020 at 4:30 pm. EST Readout for Governors' Offices DISCLAIMER: The readout is a paraphrased summary of a conference all and therefore may contain factual inaccuracies. Takeaway: The Trump Administration is requesting Governors?who support the proposed NEPA Reforms?to submit formal comments to the Federal Register by the March 10th deadline. An outside coalition, Building a Better America, has circulated draft template letters (see attached) for consideration and can provide additional information or messaging support if needed. submit formal comment: Federal Register?s Website for NEPA reform information: Council on Environmental Quality?s Website resources from Building a Better America: See attached. Briefer: Francis Brooke, Special Assistant to the President, National Economic Council Brooke emphasized the wide breadth of projects that NEPA affects, including the construction of roads, bridges, and any project under federal jurisdiction. He clarified that NEPA is a procedural statute and is not a substantive environmental statute?the reforms streamline a permitting process to make it as efficient as possible without changing any environmental standards. On behalf of the Administration, Brooke requested that supportive Governors submit formal comments to the Federal Register?the deadline is March 10th. He explained that illustrative examples from states where projects have been slowed or delayed due to NEPA permitting would be helpful in making the regulatory changes as defensible as possible. Brooke summarized a key additional changes as follows: a With the rule change, the federal government would rely more on the environmental analyses performed by state agencies, rather than duplicating state and local work. a With the rule change, the definition of ?effects" will be clarified to allow the government to focus on reasonably foreseeable effects while not prohibiting consideration of any other potential impact a project may have, such as climate factors. a With the rule change, all legal complaints against a project would be required to be brought simultaneously, and the timing forjudicial review of projects would be modified, so less time is spent in the courtroom and more time is given to advancing projects. Brooke offered responses to common criticisms of the proposed reforms: Critigue: The reforms are simply a give-away to the oil and gas industry. 0 Response: NEPA covers a full range of projects that are federally funded including highways, grazing, and general construction. Nothing about these reforms limit whom will be subject to NEPA. a Critique: The reforms preclude the federal government from considering climate change in the permitting process. 0 Response: The proposed definitional change to ?effects? does nothing to prohibit the government from considering any and all current potential impacts, including climate change. - Critigue: These reforms gut current environmental protections, putting nature at risk. 0 Response: NEPA is a purely procedural framework that governs the permitting process; nothing about the statute inherently protects the environment. All substantive environmental protection statutes, and regulations, such as the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act, are not impacted by the reforms. For more information, please contact Nic Pottebaum, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of White House, at or by cell at 202-881-7803. Briefer: Building a Better America A representative from Building a Better America offered suggested messaging that may be helpful to officials or entities that are supportive of NEPA reforms, including that by modernizing the NEPA regulations, the government is: Reforming 42 year old regulations. 0 Helping to deploy renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar. 0 Cutting down on administrative red tape. 0 Reducing the gridlock on American highways. Maintaining current environmental protections. The Building a Better America group is leading a grassroots-style coalition and can help governors interested in engaging, including: Submitting formal comment prior to the March 10 deadline. I Drafting op?eds for local newspapers in states. 0 Hosting public events with stakeholders in states. For more information, please email Wesley S. Williams Policy Ad visor Republican Governors Public Policy Committee 1747 Avenue, NW Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20006 202-662-4146 (direct) What is The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations apply to a wide range of infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, highways, airports, renewable energy production, energy infrastructure and transmission, and broadband. What are the Reforms? The ultimate goal of the reforms proposed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) is to reduce paperwork and delays involved in the NEPA process while still producing good decisions that protect the environment. Generally the reforms seek to clarify and streamline the NEPA process for federal agencies to reduce unnecessary delays and complexities in the existing process. Agencies will be required to follow the requirements under the proposed rule, with some flexibility granted to them when prescribed in the rule. One of the more significant changes in the proposed regulations would: 0 Establish time limits for both EAs and ElSs one year for EAs and two years for ElSs. Senior agency officials can approve a longer time period in writing. Additionally, the reforms would: 0 Ensure consistency of the terms used during the NEPA process and clarify uncertainties; Clarify the purpose and scope of NEPA, in particular noting that is a procedural statute intended to ensure Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their actions in the decision?making process? and does not mandate results; include a new section to help agencies determine whether or not NEPA applies; - Give agencies a clear framework to help determine the extent of agency action, so that time and resources for an environmental impact statement (EIS) are directed to the most significant projects; 0 Provide more clarity and certainty around the categorical exclusions (CEs) that are included in NEPA and facilitate the use of these much more efficient reviews; Allow agencies to adopt the CEs of other agencies to further streamline the process; Provide more detailed direction regarding environmental assessments Establish presumptive page limits for the various levels of review; Require earlier solicitation of public input; Enhance coordination during the NEPA review process with states, localities and tribes; and Update the format, page length, and timeline to complete ElSs along with reforms to streamline, provide flexibility, and improve the preparation of ElSs. The reforms would not: a Alter requirements that projects must already follow under federal and state environmental laws; 0 Make any determination about what level of NEPA analysis is required for particular projects; and a: Does not authorize any activity or commit resources to a project that would impact the environment. CONFIDENTIAL 1 Resources from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO): 0 NPRM: Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of th National Environmental Policy Act Fact Sheet Press Release Chairman Neumayr?s op?ed in the Washington Examiner What They Are Saying: Support for Proposal to Modernize its NEPA Regulations PowerPoint Presentation on Proposed Updates to NEPA Regulations Chairman Neumayr?s op?ed in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel How to submit comments? CEQ requests public comment on the NPRM. Comments should be submitted on or before March 10, 2020. You may submit comments via any of the following methods: Go to and follow the online instructions for submitting comments to Docket ID No. By Fax: 202-456-6546 By mail: Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Place NW Washington, DC 20503 Attn: Docket No. CONFIDENTIAL February 2020 Chairman Mary B. Neumayr Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Place NW Washington D.C. 20503 RE: Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA Dear Chairman Neumayr I Background Individual background] The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted 50 years ago to establish a national policy for the environment, create the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and develop the procedures for applying that policy in reviewing proposed projects. In January 2020, the CEO proposed a set of reforms2 to the NEPA process, a process which has not been comprehensively updated since 1978. What seems to be the leading problem is that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), part of the NEPA review process, takes more than 4 years to complete on average and some larger projects can take much longer. While bureaucratic delays have become the norm for many people in Washington, these delays can have a severely negative economic impact on our state. As a result, we strongly support reforms that make the federal review process more efficient, effective, concise, and timely. ll Criticisms of the Proposed NEPA Reform One concern we keep hearing is that these reforms will undermine the country's environmental laws. We take these concerns very serious at the state level where we see first-hand what can happen when environmental laws are broken. However, the substantive aspect of the NEPA review process does not change with these proposed rules. NEPA review still involves: the environmental impact of the proposed action; 2) any adverse effects that cannot be avoided; 3) alternatives to the proposed action; 4) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and 5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action.?3 Our reading of the proposed rules appear to focus on improving the process of review. There is nothing in the proposed rules that changes or replaces any environmental laws. 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 2 85 FR 1684 (Jan. 10, 2020), Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, available at: 3 85 FR 1684, 1685. From our view, NEPA was never meant to mandate outcomes or be a used as a means to stop development, ratherjust that development takes the environmental effects into consideration and informs the public.4 In addition, it appears that the CEO has only substantively amended the NEPA regulations once in its entire history.5 With all the backlogged projects awaiting approval, we think the time has come to bring some efficiencies to the process, while still protecting the environment. Historic Bipartisan Support for NEPA Reforms While we certainly acknowledge some of the concerns with reforming regulations that involve the environment, there has been historic bipartisan support for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the NEPA process.6 Starting shortly after the law went into effect, President Reagan?s CEQ issued the guidance document ?Forty Most Asked Questions,? regarding the NEPA review and how to bring some efficiencies to the process.7 Then President Clinton's CEQ published a Study of Its Effectiveness after 25 Years? focusing on the length of reports finding that page numbers had little to do with increasing the quality, but rather appeared instead to be created in anticipation of litigation.8 Then President George W. Bush issued Executive Order (E.0.) 132749 to make the NEPA review process for transportation infrastructure projects more timely and efficient. In addition, it created a Task Force? that recommended improvements to the process. President Obama told certain federal agencies to pick their top three infrastructure projects for expedited review and to start tracking their progress. This lead to the creation of ?Permitting Dashboard? used to track projects online.10 He also signed 13604 to create an inter-agency Steering Committee to recommend improvements ?to significantly reduce the aggregate time required to make permitting and review decisions? on infrastructure projects,11 and then 13626 to create a working group to focus on improving the review process for broadband deployment.12 In addition, he signed into law FAST-41, which codified the permitting Dash Board, Steering Committee, and other requirements under the permitting and review process for certain construction projects over $200 million.13 Most recently, President Trump issued E.O. 13807 to ensure interagency cooperation; a efficient, and timely multiagency review process; and the ability for agencies to use prior studies when applicable.14 It is clear there has been longstanding bipartisan support for improving the NEPA process to bring efficiencies to the process, while simultaneously protecting the human environment. As a result, we believe the CEO should move forward with improving the NEPA process as both Democrats and Republicans have done in the past. 4See 85 FR 1684, 1686. 5 See 85 FR 1684, 1686. 6 See 85 FR 1684, 1690. 7 3 9 67 FR 59449 (Sept. 23, 2002), ED. 13274 Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews. 1? Permitting Dashboard: ?An online tool for Federal agencies, project developers, and interested members of the public to track the Federal government?s environmental review and authorization processes for large or complex infrastructure projects, part of a government-wide effort to improve coordination, transparency, and accountability", available at 11 77 FR 18887 (Mar. 28, 2012), ED. 13604 Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects. 12 77 FR 36903 (J une 20, 2012) ED. 13616 Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment. 13 41 usc 4370ma437m?12. 14 82 FR 40463 (Aug. 24, 2017), EC. 13807 Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure. IV Appropriate Level of NEPA Review The different levels of NEPA Review could benefit from some clarification and improvement. Currently, an action or project can be excluded from the NEPA process, under a Categorical Exclusion (CE) if an agency has pre-determined that the action would not have a ?significant impact on the environment.?15 If no CE applies, an environmental assessment (EA) must be completed before an action or project can proceed. If it is determined that a "significant impact on the environment? will occur, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. If no significant impact is determined, an agency typically prepares a Finding of No Significant Impact We believe that clarifying the "decisional framework? would assist both agencies and the public?s understanding of how the process works. To begin with, we support developing the concept of "threshold applicability analysis.?17 We would support clarifying when NEPA review may not be warranted. The threshold analysis should be whether or not the intent of NEPA has been achieved. With regard to CEs, we support a more detailed explanation of how agencies can develop and use them. In addition, we believe an agency should be afforded an opportunity to mitigate ?extraordinary circumstances? so that, in those cases, a CE can still be used.18 In addition, given that over the decades federal agencies have created over 2,000 CEs, we support CEQ establishing government-wide CEs and allowing agencies to use each other?s CEs if applicable.19 Having more pre-determined CEs to choose from, will afford agencies the ability to focus on those actions that have a significant impact on the environment. As for EAs, we support a presumptive 75-page limit.20 We believe that EAs should be clear and concise in describing the environmental impacts and the alternatives. There is no need to provide extensive background material. However, when background is needed, incorporating it by reference is an efficient way to keep the ENS review manageable. "One Federal Decision" and Other Reforms The key proposed reforms are based on polices described in ED. 13807 which details "One Federal Decision.?21 One Federal Decision was drafted to bring efficiencies to the federal review process. Applying it to these proposed reforms, the focus is to modernize, simplify, and accelerate the review process. One of the biggest issues with the NEPA process has been the time it takes to complete. As such, CEQ published a study in December 2018 which reviewed EISs from 2010-2017 and found that while the average EIS took 4.5 years to complete, a 25% took more than 6 years and another 25% took less than 15 List of Federal Agency CEs, available at: 16 85 FR 1684, 1698. 17 85 FR 1684, 1695. 18 85 FR 1684, 1666. 19 85 FR 1684, 1696. 2? 85 FR 1684, 1697. 21 Executive Order 13807 of August 15, 2017, available at: 2.2 years.22 To address review processes, the proposed rule would place a presumptive two-year time-limit for completion of an EIS and would place a one-year time limit for an initial EA. Based on our own experience with the state-level review process, we believe that these are not only reasonable, but also warranted given that this has been a problem for over 40 years. The proposed rule also appears to improve agency coordination by having a lead agency develop a permitting schedule and have a single EIS and record of decision (ROD). Also, where practicable, have a single EA and joint FONSI.23 We support these provisions as a way of consolidating the process. Furthermore, we support the idea that Lead agencies should be able to invite non-federal agencies, including State, Tribal, and local to become cooperating agencies in the process.24 Collaboration in the early part of the process can help ensure efficiencies. We also support the idea that the lead agency should certify the process and the findings. These seemingly small common?sense suggestions should go a long way to add some desperately needed efficiencies in the process. In addition, as with governments at every level, having an internal dispute process is also vital to effective governance and therefore we support the provision that requires agencies to develop a procedure to elevate and resolve disputes.25 Another factor that contributes to prolonged decisions is the amount of paperwork involved, specifically the sheer number of pages of both a draft and final CEQ decided to conduct a study in July 2019 that found that the average draft EIS was 586 pages and a final EIS came in on average at 669 pages.26 We support reinforcing a 300-page maximum for an EIS. Giving senior agency officials the ability to approve exceeding the maximum where it would help in the review process, should be done with the understanding, as noted in the proposed rule, that there are practical limits to a decision maker?s ability to consider large amounts of information. We also support holding the senior agency official accountable for the ?quantity, quality, and timelines" of the analysis to ensure that "agencies develop ElSs focused on significant effects and other information useful to the decision makers and the public.?27 We believe that giving discretion to the senior official, while also holding that person accountable, is the right balance to ensure the process is both effective in its application, but also efficient in its administration. We also support the provisions that require the timely submission of relevant information and facilitate the use of existing studies, analysis, environmental documents on final ElSs.28 In addition, we support the clarification that agencies should also "consider economic and technical analyses along with environmental effects.?29 22 CEQ Report on EIS Timelines (2010-2017), available at: 23 85 FR 1684, 1698. 24 85 FR 1684, 1699. 25 See 85 FR 1684, 1687. 25 CEQ Report on the Length of ElSs (2013?2017) (The average length of final EIS is over 600 pages. Proposal is for less than 150 pages; and less than 300 pages if unusual in scope or complexity, available at: EIS Length Report 2019-3-22pdf 27 85 FR 1684, 1700. 23 See CEQ Report on EIS Timelines (2010-2017), available at: 29 85 FR 1684, 1695. VI Judicial Review The U.S. courts handle between 100 to 140 cases each year dealing with NEPA issues.30 As a result, NEPA related lawsuits have unnecessarily slowed the approval process for projects and even ended some because of the endless litigation. Most of the lawsuits focus on the development of the EIS. However, courts have interpreted terms and requirements differently over the years. Therefore, in order to reduce litigation and unreasonable delays, we support the provisions that codify longstanding case law and clarifies terms and regulations where there is a lack of uniformity in judicial interpretation.? VII Conclusion Therefore, improving the process requires action to modernize, simplify, and accelerate the NEPA process in way that also promotes public involvement, increases transparency, and enhances participation of state, local, and tribal participation.32 Individual [Personalized Conclusion] We appreciate your attention to these issues and the opportunity to share our recommendations. If you would like to discuss further, please contact Sincerely, 3? 85 FR 1684, 1688. 31 See 85 FR 1684, 1688; See also CEQ Report on EIS Timelines (2010-2017), available at: 32 January 09, 2020 CEQ Chairman Mary Neumayr Op-ed in Washington Examiner, A needed update to the nation's environmental rules? available at: February 2020 Chairman Mary B. Neumayr Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Place NW Washington D.C. 20503 RE: CEQ-2019-0003 Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA Dear Chairman Neumayr state/individual background] The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted 50 years ago to establish a national policy for the environment, create the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and develop the procedures for applying that policy in reviewing proposed projects. In January 2020, the CEQ proposed a set of reforms2 to the NEPA process, a process which has not been comprehensively updated since 1978. What seems to be the leading problem is that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), part of the NEPA review process, takes more than 4 years to complete on average and some larger projects can take much longer. While bureaucratic delays have become the norm for many people in Washington, these delays can have a severely negative economic impact on our state. As a result, we strongly support reforms that make the federal review process more efficient, effective, concise, and timely. The key proposed reforms are based on polices described in ED. 13807 which details ?One Federal Decision.?3 One Federal Decision was drafted to bring efficiencies to the federal review process. Applying it to these proposed reforms, the focus is to modernize, simplify, and accelerate the review process. One of the biggest issues with the NEPA process has been the time it takes to complete. As such, CEQ published a study in December 2018 which reviewed ElSs from 2010-2017 and found that while the average EIS took 4.5 years to complete, a 25% took more than 6 years and another 25% took less than 2.2 years.4 To address review processes, the proposed rule would place a presumptive two-year time-limit for completion of an EIS and would place a one-year time limit for an initial EA. Based on our own experience with the state-level review process, we believe that these are not only reasonable, but also warranted given that this has been a problem for over 40 years. 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 2 85 FR 1684 (Jan. 10, 2020), Update to the Regulations implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, available at: 3 Executive Order 13807 of August 15, 2017, available at: 4 CEQ Report on EIS Timelines (2010?2017), available at: Therefore, improving the process requires action to modernize, simplify, and accelerate the NEPA process in way that also promotes public involvement, increases transparency, and enhances participation of state, local, and tribal participation.5 individual [Personalized Conclusion] We appreciate your attention to these issues and the opportunity to share our recommendations. If you would like to discuss further, please contact Sincerely, 5 January 09, 2020 CEO Chairman Mary Neumayr Op?ed in Washington Examiner, A needed update to the nation's environmental rules? available at: Jared Larsen From: Rebecca Schimsa Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 7:49 AM Cc: Wesley Williams Subject: UPDATED CALL FW: Policy Call on NEPA Reform Reminder for today?s call at 4:30meST on NEPA with UPDATED call number and passcode: Number: 1?877?885-3221 Passcode: 228?5227 The previous number and passcode will not work; we apologize in advance for any confusion. Thank you. From: Rebecca Schimsa Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:03 PM Cc: Wesley Williams Subject: Policy Call on NEPA Reform Governors? staff, The federal comment period on the proposed rule change to NEPA closes on March 10th. While many of our governors have already announced their support of the reforms, many of you have also expressed an interest to dive deeper into the rule change. Accordingly, we are hosting a briefing call to provide additional background information on the proposed rule as well as discuss options for potential engagement, if interested. Policy Call on NEPA Reform Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 Time: 4:30-5:00 pm. EST Special guest briefers include Andrew Olmem, Deputy Assistant to the President Deputy Director, and Francis Brooke, Special Assistant to the President?both with the National Economic Council?and Nic Pottebaum, Special Assistant to the President with Intergovernmental Affairs. There will be the opportunity for you to ask questions on the call. Please let me know if you wish to join so that we can send you related background documents. We have been sent copies of rule summaries and draft template letters that we can share, which you may find helpful. Thank you, Rebecca Rebecca S. Schimsa Policy Director Republican Governors Public Policy Committee (803) 429-2066 Jared Larsen From: Wesley Williams Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 7:03 AM To: Wesley Williams Cc: Rebecca Schimsa Subject: Readout: DHS on Migrant Protection Protocols Readout of DHS Briefing Cali Confronting the Humanitarian and Security Crisis at the Southern Border Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:00 pm. EST If you wish to cite this information in any public statement or op-ed, please cite it to ?Senior Official at the Department of Homeland Security.? Readout for Governors? Offices DISCLAIMER: The readout is a paraphrased summary of a conference all and therefore may contain factual inaccuracies. Takeaway: After migrant flow across the southern order peaked in 2018-2019, DHS has seen a sharp decrease in the flow of migrants from Central America to the United States, which the Administration attributes to its expanded program, the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), as well as continued work with the governments of Mexico and Central American countries. Briefer: .Iohn Gountanis, Chief of Staff (DHS) Background: Mr. Gountanis said that after large caravans of migrants from Central America began to arrive at the southern border in late 2018, President Trump announced the Migrant Protection Program (MPP) to provide for the safety and wellbeing of migrants and to take stress off of Customs and Border Patrol resources that were strained due to the unanticipated influx of migrants. The program initially allowed DHS to return Spanish?speaking migrants from the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Hounduras, and El Salvador) to Mexico while they await their asylum hearing before an immigration judge. The program, which has since been expanded (see below), is authorized by 1999 amendments to the immigration and Nationality Act that were passed by Congress with bipartisan support. Eignsion of the Program: Mr. Gountanis explained that, at the start, MPP only applied to Spanish speaking migrants from the Northern Triangle and who were processed at the San Diego port ofentry. During the year since the program's launch, MPP has been expanded to cover migrants processed at the Calexico, Yuma, Nogales, El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville ports of entry. Although the U.S. Government could only hold MPP immigration hearings at two courts at the beginning (San Diego and El Paso), Mr. Gountanis stated that there are now temporary courts with improved infrastructure in Brownsville and Laredo. He shared that further expansion efforts include expanding eligible countries oforigin, applying the program to Portuguese speakers, Haitian migrants entering through Mexico, and extra- continental migrants entering through Mexico and who speak English. Issues for improvement identified Mr. Gountanis said that DHS compiled an independent review team consisting of agency employees who have not worked on MPP and who are not exposed to the situation on the southern border. The review team, known as the Red Team, identified several improvements that could be made to the MPP. The two issues shared by Mr. Gountanis are that immigration courts are not currently designed to handle the large dockets resulting from the influx of migrants and access to legal counsel for migrants who are returned to Mexico is relatively low. 0 Court Dockets: Mr. Gountanis stated that the agency?s response to the increase in docket sizes was to increase the number of courts that may handle MPP cases and to better the infrastructure for such courts by adding tele? 1 conference systems. He continued that, as a result, courts have increased efficiency, with an average of wait time of 90 days between the hearing and decision. It Access to Counsel: Mr. Gountanis admitted that access to counsel for those returned to Mexico is lower than those who remain in the United States; however, he stated that federal law requires immigration judges to become a quasi-advocate for migrants without representation by ensuring that the migrant has full knowledge of all available relief. Additionally, he explained that DHS has increased "know your rights? materials and has strengthened partnerships with non-governmental organizations to help provide legal counsel. Numbers: Mr. Gountanis said that starting in October 2018, caravans of hundreds of migrants would arrive at the southern border daily, with some caravans including thousands of migrants. In early 2019, after the launch of MPP, DHS was slowly returning a limited number of migrants to Mexico in order for the Mexican Government and American DHS agents to adapt to the changes in policy. Efforts increased in the summer months, resulting in DHS returning nearly 6,000 migrants a month to Mexico. Mr. Gountanis stated that to date, DHS has returned nearly 60,000 migrants; however, further return will be much slower as fewer eligible migrants attempt to enter the United States. Causes of Reduction: Mr. Gountanis attributed decreased flow of migrants directly to the MPP. He said that as knowledge of the MPP program spread throughout Central America, migrants have become less willing uproot their families and make the expensive and dangerous trip to the United States. Additionally, the MPP has resulted in a shift in demographics of who is coming to the United States, with most migrants now being those who are currently ineligible for the MPP program, such as Mexican nationals or individual travelers. Mr. Gountanis stated that continued cooperation by the governments of Central America as well as increased education of what is required to enter the United States will help further reduce the number of migrants who will be subject to MPP. Future of MPP: Mr. Gountanis said that the MPP will continue to evolve with the situation on the southern border. As numbers have decreased, there are plans to close the two temporary MPP courts in Brownsville and Laredo and replace it with a permanent court (location not disclosed). Additionally, the Trump Administration will continue to work with the Mexican Government to ensure that MPP agreements reflect the demographic of migrants who are entering the United States. (EXAMPLE recent influx of Brazilian migrants has resulted in Portuguese speakers to be subject to the MPP.) Are there any signs that Mexico will stop cooperating with the United States on the [Center for Immigration Studies] Mr. Gountanis stated that although it was difficult to get Mexico to agree to the initial program and early expansions, the Mexican Government is starting to see the success of the program and has been more cooperative with expansion plans. End. Wesley S. Williams Policy Advisor Republican Governors Public Policy Committee 1747 Avenue, NW Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20006 202?662-4146 (direct) Jared Larsen From: Rebecca Schimsa Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 4:04 PM Cc: Wesley Williams Subject: Policy Call on NEPA Reform Governors? staff, The federal comment period on the proposed rule change to NEPA closes on March 10th. While many ofour governors have already announced their support of the reforms, many of you have also expressed an interest to dive deeper into the rule change. Accordingly, we are hosting a briefing call to provide additional background information on the proposed rule as well as discuss options for potential engagement, if interested. Policy Call on NEPA Reform Date: Thursday, February 20, 2020 Time: 4:30-5:00 pm. EST Number: 1-877-855-3221 Passcode: 6685 Special guest briefers include Andrew Olmem, Deputy Assistant to the President Deputy Director, and Francis Brooke, Special Assistant to the President?both with the National Economic Council?and Nic Pottebaum, Special Assistant to the President with Intergovernmental Affairs. There will be the opportunity for you to ask questions on the call. Please let me know if you wish to join so that we can send you related background documents. We have been sent copies of rule summaries and draft template letters that we can share, which you may find helpful. Thank you, Re becca Rebecca S. Schimsa Policy Director Republican Governors Public Policy Committee (803) 429-2066 State Governor Name Title AL Kay Ivey Will Parker General Counsel AK Mike Dunleavy Ed Sniffen Chief of Staff (Dept. of Law) AZ Doug Ducey Anni Foster General Counsel AR Asa Hutchinson Mary Robin Casteel Chief Legal Counsel FL Ron DeSantis Joe Jacquot General Counsel GA Brian Kemp David Dove Executive Counsel ID Brad Little Brian Wonderlich General Counsel IN Eric Holcomb Joe Heerens General Counsel IA Kim Reynolds Sam Langholz Senior Legal Counsel MD Larry Hogan Bob Scholz Chief Legal Counsel MA Charlie Baker Robert Ross Chief Legal Counsel MS Tate Reeves David Maron Chief Counsel MO Mike Parson Christopher Limbaugh General Counsel NE Pete Ricketts Lauren Kintner Policy Director General Counsel NH Chris Sununu John Formella Legal Counsel ND Doug Burgum Leslie Bakken Oliver General Counsel OH Mike DeWine Matt Donahue Chief Legal Counsel OK Kevin Stitt Mark Burget General Counsel SC Henry McMaster Thomas Limehouse Chief Legal Counsel SD Kristi Noem Tom Hart Chief General Counsel TN Bill Lee Lang Wiseman General Counsel TX Greg Abbott Jeff Oldham General Counsel UT Gary Herbert Gordon Larsen Counsel to the Governor VT Phil Scott Jaye Pershing Johnson Legal Counsel WV Jim Justice Brian Abraham General Counsel WY Mark Gordon Betsy Anderson General Counsel State Email H. rnor.alabama. ov . a afosterQazgov :2 steel overnorark 90. florida. ia. 0v .wonderiich (mi rens ov.in. cw samJa Iz robert.scholz robe avidm i Ila lboliver@nd.gov hue overnornhio. ov.ok. ov overnor om.hart tasd. Ian .wiseman ef?oldh ri ts .and Primary Number 334?242-7120 907?269-5220 602-769?7492 501-590-1270 904?402-0303 706-296?9360 208-854-3018 317-232-4567 515-537-5280 443-433-6091 617?725-4030 601?473?6206 573?508-9166 2-416?3483 50-375-1707 01-328-2204 14-420?0149 5?522-8821 3-609-5807 5-773-2791 15?741-3761 12-463?1788 1?538-1503 2-828?6410 658-2000 07-214-7009 Secondary Number 907-269-5100 602-542-1455 2-471-2533 14-644?0825 02?577-6355