Photo of Andrea Wortzel

Andrea Wortzel

Subscribe to Andrea Wortzel's Posts

Andrea focuses her practice on water quantity and water quality issues, including water rights, water supply planning, and water withdrawal permitting, as well as discharge permitting and TMDL development and implementation. She coordinates a growing and influential stakeholder group focused on water supply issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Beyond her water practice, Andrea advises clients on endangered species issues, landfill permitting and compliance, waste permitting, environmental compliance and audit programs and environmental enforcement defense. Andrea also regularly counsels clients on legislative and regulatory strategies to promote her clients’ objectives.

Follow:Read more about Andrea WortzelAndrea's Linkedin Profile

On Monday February 12, President Trump unveiled his long-awaited infrastructure plan.  According to President Trump, our country’s infrastructure “is in an unacceptable state of disrepair, which damages our country’s competitiveness and our citizens’ quality of life.”  While some view the plan as a step toward streamlining an environmental review process that could delay a project unnecessarily, others worry the proposal could curtail the authority federal agencies exercise over environmental reviews pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The plan calls for $200 billion to be spent rebuilding roads, bridges, highways, railways, waterways, and other infrastructure over the next ten years.  That money will come from cuts to other programs (particularly within the Department of Transportation) and is not intended—at least as proposed—to come from new revenue streams.  According to President Trump, the proposed changes will generate approximately $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure investment.

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 December 22, 2017, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) reversed course and issued a Memorandum interpreting the scope of criminal liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and its applicability to “incidental takings,” which the Memorandum defines as a death or other “take” that “results from an activity, but [that] is not the purpose of that activity.” In short, the Memorandum concludes that criminal liability under the MBTA should not be interpreted to extend to incidental takes, and instead only applies to “affirmative actions that has as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs.” This Memorandum will provide significant needed clarity to renewable energy projects and many other industries that perform activities with the potential to indirectly, and non-purposefully, impact migratory birds during development, construction, or operation.

Previously, we reported on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“USFWS”) issuance of the final ESA Compensatory Mitigation Policy (“ESA-CMP”), the first comprehensive treatment of compensatory mitigation under the Endangered Species Act.  Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy, 81 FR 95316 (Dec. 27, 2016).  The policy formalizes the Services’ shift from project-by-project to landscape-scale approaches to planning and implementing compensatory mitigation.  We also reported on the Services’ issuance of a final revised Mitigation Policy in November 2016 intended to serve as an overall umbrella strategy under which more detailed Service sub-policies or guidance documents covering specific activities would be issued.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, 81 FR 83440 (Nov. 21, 2016).  Both policies focus on using mitigation to achieve a “net conservation benefit.”

Troutman Sanders has formed a new group, Species Strategies and Solutions (S3), which will track policy, regulatory, legislative, and litigation developments regarding federally-protected wildlife and plants.  Initiatives to address infrastructure projects, and how those initiatives relate to species-related review requirements, will also be featured.  S3 will be focused primarily on national-level species-related developments that have the potential to affect construction and operation of projects in those sectors. S3 is not a lobbying or advocacy group; rather, its purpose is to facilitate a better understanding of the issues associated with compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and strategies for addressing those issues.

On August 17, 2017, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published in the Federal Register a final rule designating over 3,900 river miles along the east coast as critical habitat for five distinct population segments (“DPS”) of Atlantic Sturgeon (New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, South Atlantic and Gulf of Maine).  The agency chose these areas based on the presence of “physical or biological factors” (PBFs) essential for the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection.  Back in 2012, NMFS had listed each of the five Atlantic Sturgeon DPS as either endangered or threatened.  77 Fed. Reg. 5880; 77 Fed. Reg. 5914.  Once a species is listed, the relevant agencies must identify critical habitat for the species.  Under the ESA, impacts to critical habitat must be evaluated in federal permitting actions, in addition to impacts to the species itself.

On May 23rd, the Trump administration released its full fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, continuing its call for significant funding cuts for many EPA programs. Consistent with the framework outlined in the administration’s “skinny” budget issued earlier in March, the proposal would cut EPA’s overall budget by 31.4 percent, reducing overall spending from $8 billion in 2017 to $5.7 billion for 2018.  The plan would eliminate approximately 20 percent of the agency’s workforce, reducing the number of staff from over 15,000 to approximately 11,600, a reduction of approximately 3,800 jobs.

As previously reported, President Trump has issued an Executive Order calling on EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to formally review the “Clean Water Rule” also known as the Water of the United States (WOTUS) Rulemaking. On April 19, EPA laid outs its plans for revising the Clean Water Rule consistent with the Executive Order in a meeting with state and local officials.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently initiated actions in response to multiple Executive Orders issued by President Trump directing major regulatory reforms.  In a staff memo intended to facilitate compliance with the “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” Executive Order, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt designated a Regulatory Reform Officer and established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding those that can be repealed, replaced or modified to reduce the burdens on the regulated community.  Administrator Pruitt further directed the Offices of Air and Radiation, Land and Emergency Management, Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Water, Environmental Information, Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations and Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to provide the Task Force with recommendations for specific rules that should be targeted.  Each of these offices must hold a dedicated public meeting and provide their recommendations by May 15th.