Kristina Ramsey practices predominantly in the area of environmental law, focusing on the management of environmental risks and liabilities and compliance issues. Kristina understands the significance of focusing on details in evaluating her clients’ environmental and land use needs as a result of her experience in commercial and real estate litigation. She makes it a point to learn the intricacies of the often complex industrial processes, operations and development objectives of her clients, which allows for a thorough evaluation of environmental matters and ensures productive and meaningful interaction with clients’ technical consultants.
- Defended and negotiated enforcement action settlements on behalf of clients with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding alleged violations of federal lead-based paint disclosure rules. As part of Kristina’s preliminary evaluation of the alleged violations, she oversaw consultant’s lead-based paint risk inspection and risk assessment efforts in regard to large apartment complexes, and she worked with local governmental authorities to address infrastructure on site containing lead-based paint.
- Defended and negotiated an enforcement action settlement with the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Army Corps of Engineers concerning alleged violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. As background, Kristina researched and reviewed decades of complex permitting history for the site in relation to various land owners and regulatory authorities, and ultimately assisted in negotiating a settlement on behalf of the then current land owners for work unintentionally undertaken without appropriate authorizations.
- Represented clients in administrative appeals of the United States Department of Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdictional determinations and permitting decisions. Kristina appealed a Corps jurisdictional determination that certain wetlands were subject to federal jurisdiction and regulation as “waters of the United States.” She established that the Corps District was incorrect in asserting jurisdiction based on its application of the then current regulatory criteria and associated guidance by persuasively arguing that the Corps District’s administrative record was speculative and did not contain substantial evidence in support of its determination.
More »