Environmental Enforcement

Subscribe to Environmental Enforcement via RSS

The frenetic pace of anti-renewable actions from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has continued into this week with the issuance of a new memorandum from Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff for policy, directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ratchet up enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) against wind energy projects, and to scrutinize the eagle permit program that the FWS adopted in 2024 after many years of development.

During the week of July 28, the Trump administration unleashed a new burst of actions aimed squarely at blocking wind and solar energy with the announcement of two new secretarial orders (SO) and three new policies by the Department of the Interior (DOI), plus one from the Department of Transportation (DOT). These latest measures follow on the heels of the recent internal directive from DOI Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Gregory Wischer implementing three new levels of political review for a comprehensive list of approvals, consultations, and interim steps in the permitting processes for wind and solar projects with a nexus to DOI’s regulatory authority. Although couched in terms of curbing “preferential treatment” for wind energy, the measures go well beyond any leveling of the playing field, instead significantly disadvantaging wind and solar — which the DOI refers to as “foreign-controlled energy sources” — compared to other sources of energy or uses of public lands.

UPDATE

On February 19, the White House unveiled an interim final rule (IFR) to rescind all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated since 1977. The IFR takes effect immediately and bypasses the usual public notice and comment process for rulemakings by invoking the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)[1], although its publication in the Federal Register will trigger a 30-day public comment period.

President Trump hit the ground running, issuing more executive orders, memoranda, and other actions on Inauguration Day than any previous president. Agencies are already working to implement those actions. Many of the actions are interrelated, so Troutman Pepper Locke’s Environmental + Natural Resources team has put together the following resource to help assess the impact of these actions on environmental policy, and how the various actions fit together.

Last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released two revised compensatory policies. The Mitigation Policy and the ESA Compensatory Mitigation Policy reject the stringent goal of net conservation gain used by the FWS during the Obama administration. Instead, both policies include the goal of no net loss, which means maintaining the current status of affected resources. While the policies are nonbinding, they will guide how the FWS evaluates compensatory mitigation in the context of incidental take permitting, conservation benefit agreements for candidate species, and ESA Section 7 consultation. Both policies do not apply retroactively to completed actions, but the FWS may elect to apply the Mitigation Policy’s principles to actions under review. Both policies continue to favor advance compensatory mitigation over other mitigation options.

On February 8, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed regulatory changes (Proposed Rule) focused on the application and approval process for Endangered Species Act (ESA) permits issued under Section 10. Section 10 of the ESA authorizes FWS to permit take of listed species where such take is necessary for scientific purposes or the enhancement of propagation or survival of the species, or where the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10 permits are used for Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances and Safe Harbor Agreements, which are voluntary landowner agreements designed to benefit candidates or listed species, respectively. Section 10 permits also have been used to allow the take of listed species incidental to private development activities through a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which involves the project proponent committing to certain conservation activities.

On October 7, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to revise its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of certain proposed projects, but does not mandate any particular outcome. The NOPR is focused on revisions the July 2020 rulemaking completed by the Trump administration, which was the first significant overhaul of the NEPA regulations since their initial promulgation in 1978. The Trump rulemaking included provisions to streamline the NEPA review process, as well as substantive changes to the scope of the review. CEQ’s NOPR follows an announcement early in 2021 by the incoming Biden administration that it planned to review the July 2020 rulemaking. In the NOPR, the Biden administration outlines the aspects of the rule it plans to change: the purpose and need of a proposed agency action, agency procedures for implementing CEQ’s regulations, and the definition of “effects” of a proposed action.

Following the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) July 2020 overhaul of regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), environmental plaintiffs filed a series of lawsuits challenging the rule in federal courts in California, Virginia, New York, and the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs argued that CEQ violated NEPA itself in promulgating the final rule by failing to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). They also argued that CEQ ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to follow notice-and-comment requirements, by issuing a final rule that is “arbitrary and capricious,” and by improperly narrowing both the scope of projects under review and the types of impacts agencies should consider.

The Biden administration has already taken several actions that signal its intention to shift to a more federally focused environmental enforcement approach. Although the Trump administration generally adopted a “hands off” approach that afforded states broad deference in deciding when to initiate and prosecute environmental enforcement actions, the new administration appears to be moving toward a more robust federal role in environmental enforcement.