OutdoorWire

Extreme Terrain



New on Access Central
GAO Report on WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION
by outdoorwire. 02/22/18 10:27 PM
Critical Habitat to be reviewed by Supreme Court
by outdoorwire. 01/31/18 07:37 PM
Support OutdoorWire...
More News on the 'Wire

4x4Voice
4x4Wire
MUIRNet-News
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics1,397
Posts1,448
Members42
Most Online188
Dec 2nd, 2017
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 14 guests, and0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Active Threads | Active Posts | Unanswered Today | Since Yesterday | This Week
Federal Legislation - Firearms
02/22/18 10:32 PM
H.R. 5077: To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Introduced:
Feb 20, 2018

Status:
Introduced on Feb 20, 2018

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on February 20, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Source: GovTrack
0 44 see more
GAO Reports
02/22/18 10:27 PM
WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION:
Competitive Grant Programs Managed Consistently with Relevant Regulations, but Monitoring Could Be Improved

The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Program, part of the Fish and Wildlife Service, awarded $54 million in FY 2016 in competitive grants for projects ranging from building boat docks to acquiring wetlands.

We looked at WSFR’s process for awarding and monitoring grants through five competitive grant programs it manages. Our review found that, although WSFR's process was consistent with federal regulations, some performance reports WSFR uses to monitor grants were missing required information. We recommended that WSFR develop a standardized way to collect required information to ensure effective oversight.

Download the full report here.
0 56 see more
Federal Legislation
02/20/18 10:52 PM
H.R. 3131: Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act

This bill amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to replace the current standard for awarding court costs, including attorney fees, in citizen suits with the federal judicial code standard for awarding costs to a prevailing party.

Proposed Bill text is below, or GovTrack

Union Calendar No. 424

115th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3131

[Report No. 115–563, Part I]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 29, 2017

Mr. Huizenga introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

February 15, 2018

Additional sponsors: Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Jones, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Cole, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Sessions

February 15, 2018

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources

February 15, 2018

The Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to conform citizen suits under that Act with other existing law, and for other purposes.

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act.

2.Award of litigation costs to prevailing parties in accordance with existing law
Section 11(g)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(4)) is amended by striking to any and all that follows through the end of the sentence and inserting to any prevailing party in accordance with section 2412 of title 28, United States Code..

February 15, 2018

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources

February 15, 2018

The Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
0 89 see more
Legal Issues
01/31/18 07:37 PM
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Designation of Unoccupied Habitat as Critical Habitat Under ESA

The scope and definition of critical habitat under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act has been a controversial subject. In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 6,477 acres of land in Louisiana (including 1,600 privately-owned acres) as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, despite the fact that the frogs have not been seen in the state for decades. Timber company Weyerhauser Co. and private landowner Markle Interests LLC filed suit challenging that designation. Subsequent to the critical habitat designation for the dusky gopher frog, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, “the Services”) promulgated new critical habitat rules that authorized, among other things, the designation of areas where a species was not actually present as critical habitat for that species. Thus, the outcome of this case has significant implications for these 2016 rules.

On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. The Court will be reviewing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the critical habitat designation. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had not established the Services’ decision to designate critical habitat was arbitrary and capricious. The Services designation determined that the land designated in Louisiana “was essential for the conservation of the dusky gopher frog,” because it contained unique ephemeral ponds which are the only habitats that can support the rare frog. The Fifth Circuit approved the Services’ conclusion that “a designation limited to the frog’s present range would be inadequate.” The case is expected to be argued during the Supreme Court’s next term.

Source: Lexology
0 362 see more
Access Roundtable
01/30/18 08:49 PM
The proposed CEQA Guidelines amendments are the most comprehensive update since 1998.

The proposal would also adopt the Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) methodology for transportation impact analysis.

Comments on the proposed CEQA Guidelines are due to the Natural Resources Agency by March 15, 2018.

On January 26, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency released a sweeping set of proposed amendments to regulations implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), known as the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal is the product of over four years of development by the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research (OPR) and combines the most comprehensive CEQA Guidelines update since 1998, with changes to transportation impact analysis directed by Senate Bill 743 (2013). The proposed amendments incorporate statutory changes, court decisions and comments from public agencies, developers and business groups, environmental groups and other stakeholders through multiple rounds of public review. The wide range of issues covered includes use of regulatory standards as significance thresholds; environmental baselines; transportation, climate, water supply and energy impacts; and numerous technical improvements.

CEQA requires California state and local agencies to evaluate and, if feasible, avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts from public projects that they undertake or private projects for which they grant permits, leases, funds and other approvals. The CEQA Guidelines spell out in great detail procedures and content for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Negative Declarations, and also identify categories of actions exempt from CEQA. Amending the CEQA Guidelines is a two-step process: OPR first develops a proposal, and then the Natural Resources Agency conducts formal rulemaking. The Resources Agency has issued OPR’s proposal, with minor modifications, for comments which are due March 15.

Key Proposed Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines

Using Regulatory Standards as Significance Thresholds. In the CEQA process, “significance thresholds” are the standards used to determine whether or not impacts of a project are “significant” and must be mitigated. For example, most cities and counties have adopted noise standards; if project-generated noise exceeds a standard, the project is considered to cause a significant noise impact. Proposed CEQA Guidelines sections 15064 and 15064.7 authorize lead agencies (that is, agencies conducting CEQA review) to rely on existing environmental standards adopted by other regulatory agencies as significance thresholds. Such use of regulatory standards will promote efficiency and help avoid imposing duplicative or, worse, conflicting burdens on projects subject to both CEQA and regulatory requirements. However, the amendments also provide that the lead agency remains obligated to consider evidence that an impact may still be significant, notwithstanding compliance with a regulatory standard. In addition, amended Guidelines section 15064.7 clarifies that lead agencies may use significance thresholds on an informal case-by-case basis (which is, in fact, a widespread practice of lead agencies throughout the state), without undertaking a formal adoption process.

Environmental Baseline. The environmental setting or “baseline” describes existing conditions in the project vicinity, which are excluded from impacts caused by the project and do not require mitigation. While existing conditions at the start of CEQA review normally constitute the baseline, proposed Guidelines section 15125 allows the use of other baselines supported by appropriate evidence. Representative past conditions may provide a more accurate baseline than a snapshot of existing conditions at an atypical moment. Conversely, for major infrastructure projects that take years to construct, anticipated future conditions at the start of service may provide a more informative baseline. Guidelines section 15301, which exempts minor alterations to existing facilities with no expansion of use from CEQA review, is also amended to clarify that past conditions may be considered in determining whether a project expands the facility’s use.

However, one aspect of the amendments, carried forward from OPR’s November proposal, is inconsistent with current case law. Proposed Guidelines section 15125(a)(2) applies a heightened evidentiary standard to past-conditions baselines, allowing their use only where there is substantial evidence that an existing conditions snapshot would be misleading or without informative value to decision-makers and the public. A recent case (Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 708) expressly rejected that argument, as commenters are sure to point out.

Data Dumping. CEQA critics have long complained of the practice of “data dumping” by project opponents who submit massive comments, often on the eve of EIR approval, containing thousands of pages of text and data files, or links to general websites without pointing to specific documents or information. Proposed Guidelines section 15088 allows a lead agency to respond at a level of detail corresponding to the level of detail in the comment, providing only general responses when comments fail to explain the relevance of submitted data or to refer specifically to readily available information.

Exacerbating Existing Hazards. Following a California Supreme Court case (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369), proposed Guidelines section 15126.2(a) confirms that CEQA review focuses on impacts of the proposed project on the existing environment, not impacts of the existing environment on the proposed project and its future residents or users (sometimes referred to as “reverse CEQA” analysis). However, consistent with the Court’s decision, the revisions emphasize that an EIR must also consider whether the project’s effects may exacerbate existing environmental hazards, such as increasing risks from erosion or wildfires by bringing development into vulnerable areas.

VMT Metric for Transportation Impacts. As directed by SB 743, proposed new Guidelines section 15064.3 incorporates an alternative metric for transportation analysis. Critics of the traditional “Level of Service” (LOS) method, measuring delays caused by traffic congestion at intersections and roadways, argue that mitigation to alleviate LOS impacts results in increased traffic and undercuts greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The new section 15064.3 replaces LOS with “Vehicle-Miles-Traveled” (VMT), measuring the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Projects that decrease VMT or are within one-half mile of transit are considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. Lead agencies retain discretion to select analytic methodology and also to choose a measure other than VMT for projects intended to increase roadway capacity—an exception which is likely to provoke comments from LOS critics. Conversely, critics of VMT are likely to renew concerns that the new Guideline goes beyond SB 743 and promotes unavoidable traffic congestion by imposing the new metric throughout the state, including areas where transit is unavailable.

Climate Impacts. Proposed Guidelines section 15064.4 requires lead agencies to evaluate a project’s contribution to climate change over an appropriate time frame, make good faith efforts to describe or estimate GHG emissions, and incorporate evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory schemes. Again, lead agencies retain discretion to choose quantitative or qualitative analysis, select methodologies and consider consistency with the state’s long-term climate goals and strategies, if supported by substantial evidence that those goals and strategies do address the project’s GHG contribution. These changes, codifying two recent California Supreme Court decisions (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Gov’ts (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497 and Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204), were not included in prior versions circulated for public comment by OPR.

Water Supply Impacts. Proposed Guidelines section 15155(f) incorporates specific elements required for CEQA analysis of water supply impacts following another California Supreme Court decision (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412).

Energy Impacts. Proposed new Guidelines section 15126.2 treats “wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary” energy consumption as a significant environmental impact. Compliance with building code energy efficiency requirements is a necessary but not exclusive means of addressing energy impacts. CEQA reviews must consider energy consumed by project construction and operation, but need not account for full “lifecycle impacts” such as energy used to produce building materials and consumer products used in a project.

Appendix G Checklist. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains a checklist of questions used by many lead agencies both as the format for an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and as a source of significance thresholds in an EIR. The proposed checklist amendments clarify and consolidate numerous questions as well as fixing inconsistencies with other laws and cases. Changes include clarifying that impacts to public (not private) views may be significant under CEQA; wetlands protected by state as well as federal law must be evaluated; and paleontological resources are considered in the geological rather than cultural category consistent with AB 52. New checklist questions on wildfire risk are unhappily timely after California’s recent severe fires.

Mitigation. Proposed Guidelines sections 15126.4 and 15370 respectively describe circumstances in which agencies may defer specifying details of mitigation measures and use conservation easements as mitigation.

Pre-CEQA Agreements. Proposed Guidelines section 15004 describes circumstances in which a lead agency may to enter into pre-CEQA agreements, such as exclusive negotiating and option agreements, contingent on CEQA compliance and without committing to carry out a project.

Other Procedural Changes and Clarifications. Additional proposed Guidelines amendments address a range of topics including use of program EIRs and tiering; clarifying the emergency repair, transit-oriented development and “common sense” CEQA exemptions; coordination among multiple eligible lead agencies and with federal agencies conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review; consulting with transit agencies; identifying project applicants in CEQA notices; including project benefits in the EIR’s statement of objectives; and judicial remedies for CEQA errors.

Next Steps

The Natural Resources Agency will accept comments on the proposed CEQA Guidelines amendments until March 15, 2018. Given that OPR has already taken many comments into account during the long gestation of the proposal, the final adopted amendments may not change much from their current proposed form. Nevertheless, agencies, project developers and other stakeholders may wish to comment on amendment language that is new (such as changes reflecting comments on, and court decisions since, OPR’s 2015 and 2016 drafts), as well as reiterating comments on issues affecting their interests.

After receiving and considering comments and incorporating any revisions, the Natural Resources Agency will submit the final CEQA Guidelines amendments to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review and approval. The effective date of the amended Guidelines will be determined when OAL files them with the Secretary of State. For most of the Guidelines, compliance will become mandatory 120 days following the effective date, although agencies may elect to implement conforming changes earlier. The proposed rule allows a grace period until July 1, 2019 (moved forward from the January 1, 2020 compliance date proposed by OPR) before the VMT metric for analyzing transportation impacts becomes mandatory on a statewide basis, though again agencies may elect to comply earlier.

Source: Lexology
0 518 see more

OutdoorWire Websites

OutdoorWire

OutdoorWire

Portal page for OutdoorWire Access and Landuse Central Read More
4x4Voice

4x4Voice

California off road recreation news and information Read More
MUIRNet News

MUIRNet News

News and information about issues affecting outdoor recreation Read More
4x4Wire

4x4Wire

Off road recreation and 4x4 Technical news and information Read More
TrailTalk

TrailTalk

4x4Wire TrailTalk Forums for a variety of 4x4 tech information Read More

4x4Wire Tech Section

Jeep 4x4 Tech

Jeep 4x4 Tech

Jeep Tech from JeepWire - Mods, Maintenance, Tech and more... Read More
Isuzu 4x4 Tech

Isuzu 4x4 Tech

Isuzu Tech from 4x4Wire - Mods, Maintenance, Tech and more... Read More



4x4Wire Social:

| 4x4Wire on FaceBook | Google+4x4Wire on Google+|


OutdoorWire, 4x4Wire, JeepWire, TrailTalk, MUIRNet-News, and 4x4Voice are all trademarks and publications of OutdoorWire, Inc. and MUIRNet Consulting.
Copyright (c) 1999-2018 OutdoorWire, Inc and MUIRNet Consulting - All Rights Reserved, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without express written permission
You may link freely to this site, but no further use is allowed without the express written permission of the owner of this material.
All corporate trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Page Time: 0.007s Queries: 6 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9476 MB (Peak: 0.9969 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-02-25 05:49:27 UTC