What matters to me today are CEQA and species.
California law is clear: the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) must comply with CEQA before issuing an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for a protected species — including candidate species. Problems arise when a city or county previously served as CEQA lead agency for the underlying project, but the certified CEQA document never analyzed the species that later becomes the subject of an ITP.
At that point, there are two procedural paths. One is for the original lead agency to update its CEQA document — through an addendum, supplemental EIR, or subsequent EIR — to evaluate impacts to the newly relevant species. The other is for CDFW to step in and become the CEQA lead.
The latter should be avoided. CDFW is a permitting and wildlife-management agency, not a land-use planning authority. Forcing it into the role of CEQA lead invites duplication, delay, and litigation risk, and improperly shifts responsibility away from the agency that controls project design and mitigation.
The better approach is grounded in CEQA’s existing structure. Deference should remain with the city or county lead agency, which already has subject-matter expertise over the project, its environmental setting, and its biological impacts and mitigation measures. The lead agency can address project biological issues through focused updates to its CEQA document and refer the matter to CDFW for permitting. This preserves CEQA’s coordinated review process while ensuring wildlife protections are implemented through the Department’s permitting authority, rather than through duplicative, permit-driven CEQA proceedings.
That’s what matters to me today in 250 words or less. What matters to you? I’d really like to know.