On the heels of its notice of federal rulemaking under the National Environmental Policy Act (see our July 2 blog post) and other more modest efforts at reform on the administrative level, the Administration on July 19 announced a series of proposed changes to the regulations governing administration of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Among the changes, the proposed rules would revise provisions governing:
- Listing of species and designation of critical habitat (Section 4); and
- Interagency consultations on critical habitat and related mitigation (Section 7).
Probably the most dramatic element is the proposed rescission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s long-standing 4(d) rule, which years ago extended protections of endangered species to those species designated only as “threatened.” The Administration emphasizes that its regulatory efforts are needed to “improve” and “clarify” administration of the ESA. Three proposed rules are expected to be published in the Federal Register in the next several days:
- Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat;
- Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation; and
- Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Any Comments will be due in sixty (60) days (late September 2018).
On June 20, 2018, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an 
The CEQA Statute and Guidelines both contain provisions outlining what types of projects are exempt from environmental review. There are dozens of exemptions, however, that are listed in other provisions of the California codes that can be difficult to find. On June 6, 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a helpful 
In a March 2018 decision, the First Appellate District examined several CEQA issues pertinent to petroleum refining and hazardous materials transport. In Rodeo Citizens Association v. County of Contra Costa, the appeals court affirmed several findings of the lower court, dismissing challenges to the environmental impact report (“EIR”) prepared for a propane and butane recovery project at the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo. (The appeals court did not review the trial court’s order to the county to set aside the certification of the EIR and correct several other air quality related issues.) The appeals court found the risk of rail transportation of propane and butane was appropriately measured against the baseline of existing risks; the project description did not mask plans for the refinery to alter its crude oil feedstock; and that greenhouse gas impacts from downstream uses of petroleum products need not be evaluated. 
The United States Supreme Court will not be taking up the California Supreme Court’s July 2017 
On March 22, 2018, the Second Appellate District certified for publication its opinion in 
On December 20, 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal delivered a solid win for the City of San Diego in a multi-faceted challenge to its approval of a private school pursuant to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). In Clews Land and Livestock LLC et al. v. City of San Diego, Petitioners Clews Land and Livestock, et al. (“CLL”) argued that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required because of significant impacts in the areas of fire hazards, traffic, noise, recreation, and historic resources, and because the final MND included impacts not disclosed in the draft. CLL further argued that the City’s approval violated the applicable community land use plan and historic resources provisions of the San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC.). 
On December 22, the Second Appellate District certified for publication its November 30 opinion in 