Wildearth Guardians v. United States Environmental Protection Agency , 759 F.3d 1196 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
PUBLISH Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 23, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,
Petitioner,
v. No. 13-9524
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; GINA
MCCARTHY, in her official capacity as
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Respondents.
______________________
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANY,
Intervenor - Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(No. EPA-RO9-OAR-2010-0683)
Ashley D. Wilmes, WildEarth Guardians, Louisville, Colorado, for Petitioner.
Martha C. Mann, Environmental Defense Section, (Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, and Kristen Byrnes Floom, Environmental Defense Section, with her
on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources
Division, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Makram B. Jaber, (William L. Wehrum, Andrew J. Turner, Andrew D. Knudsen, with
him on the brief), Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor -
Respondent.
Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
On August 24, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a
final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reduce regional haze by regulating emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) at the five units of the Four Corners
Power Plant (the Plant) on the Navajo Reservation in northwestern New Mexico.1
WildEarth Guardians (WildEarth) filed a petition under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) for
review of the FIP. It argued that promulgation of the FIP did not comply with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) because the EPA failed to consult with the Fish and
Wildlife Service about the effect of the FIP even though the EPA had discretion to act to
protect endangered fish near the Plant from mercury and selenium emissions. We deny
the petition. WildEarth has contended that the EPA had four grounds for the exercise of
discretion that could have benefitted the fish. But the principal ground was mooted by
the closure of Plant Units 1–3 and two other grounds were not raised in WildEarth’s
1
See Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available
Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation (Final FIP), 77 Fed.
Reg. 51620 (Aug. 24, 2012).
2
opening brief. As for the fourth alleged ground, it could not create a duty to consult
under the ESA because it would have required the EPA to exceed the clearly delineated
boundaries of the FIP.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Regulation of Four Corners Power Plant
The Plant is a coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Reservation near
Farmington, New Mexico. It is privately owned by Arizona Public Service Company
(APS) and several other utilities. APS serves as the Plant operator. At the time of the
rulemaking, the Plant consisted of five units; Units 1 and 2 were each rated to a capacity
of 170 mega-watts (MW), Unit 3 was rated to a capacity of 220 MW, and Units 4 and 5
were each rated to a capacity of 750 MW.
In 1977 Congress amended the Clean Air Act to authorize the EPA to regulate
regional haze to remedy “any existing[] impairment of visibility in mandatory class I
Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 7491(a)(1); see id. § 7491(a)(4),(b). Federal Class I areas are international parks,
national wilderness areas, national memorial parks, and national parks that exceed a
certain size. See id. § 7472. The regional-haze program has “goals and standards [that]
are purely aesthetic rather than directly related to health and safety.” Oklahoma v. U.S.
EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1226 (10th Cir. 2013) (Kelly, J. concurring in part and dissenting in
part); Henry N. Butler & Nathaniel J. Harris, Sue, Settle, and Shut Out the States:
Destroying the Environmental Benefits of Cooperative Federalism, 37 Harv. J.L. & Pub.
3
Pol’y 579, 603 (2014) (“The [regional haze provisions] are designed to improve visibility
in national parks and wilderness areas by decreasing pollution—a purely aesthetic goal
unrelated to health.”).
The process for regulating haze resembles that for regulating air pollutants for
which the EPA has set national ambient-air-quality standards (NAAQS) under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 7408 and 7409.2 Once a standard has been established for a pollutant, each state is
responsible for developing a state implementation plan (SIP) to meet the standard by
means such as setting emission limits for power plants and other stationary sources of
pollution. See id. § 7410. The SIP must be approved by the EPA; and if a state fails to
submit a SIP, or if it fails to remedy a deficient SIP, the EPA is required to promulgate a
FIP within two years. See id. § 7410(c).
For haze reduction the EPA does not set NAAQS, but it must (1) promulgate a list
of Class I areas that are designated visibility areas based on a determination by the
Secretary of the Interior that each area is one “where visibility is an important value of
the area,” id. § 7491(a)(2); and (2) promulgate regulations to assure “reasonable
progress” toward the national goal of visibility in Class I areas, id. § 7491(a)(4). States
whose emissions may contribute to visibility impairment in designated visibility areas
must issue SIPs that require operating stationary sources emitting air pollutants that can
2
There are now NAAQS for six pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead. See Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA,
Nos. 12-1146, 12-1248, 12-1254, 12-1268, 12-1269, 12-1271, 2014 WL 2807314, at *3
(U.S. June 23, 2014).
4
contribute to visibility impairment to “procure, install, and operate, as expeditiously as
practicable (and maintain thereafter) the best available retrofit technology [(BART)]” to
reduce such emissions. Id. § 7491(b)(2)(A). The EPA must examine five factors when
determining what is the BART:
[1] the costs of compliance, [2] the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance, [3] any existing pollution control
technology in use at the source, [4] the remaining useful life of the source,
and [5] the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such [BART].
Id. § 7491(g)(2). Section 7491 does not, however, govern chemicals listed as “hazardous
air pollutants” under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b). Section 112,
under which the EPA sets emission standards for source polluters that emit hazardous air
pollutants, states, “The provisions of [the regional-haze program] shall not apply to
pollutants listed under this section.” Id. § 7412(b)(6). Both mercury and selenium
compounds are listed as hazardous pollutants. See id. § 7412(b)(1).
In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress declared that in some
situations Indian tribes should be treated as states for purposes of the Act. See id.
§ 7601(d). Congress left it to the EPA to specify the provisions of the Act “for which it is
appropriate to treat Indian Tribes as States” and authorized the EPA to “promulgate
regulations which establish the elements of tribal implementation plans [(TIPs)].” Id.
§ 7601(d)(2)‒(3). Congress also provided that the EPA could at times directly administer
regulations under a FIP on tribal land, similar to its power to issue a FIP if a state does
not submit an acceptable SIP. See id. § 7601(d)(4). The EPA promulgated the Tribal
5
Authority Rule under these provisions in 1998. See 40 C.F.R. pt. 49 (2013). The rule
generally “authorize[s] eligible tribes to have the same rights and responsibilities as
States.” Id. § 49.1. But recognizing that tribes would need more time than states to
investigate and submit TIPs, the EPA eliminated several time requirements for TIPs,
including the deadline for submitting specific visibility implementation plans. See id.
§ 49.4(e). It also determined that it could issue FIPs when “necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality . . . if a tribe does not submit a [proper TIP].” Id. § 49.11.
Because the Plant is on the Navajo Reservation, it is not regulated by any New
Mexico SIP. And the Navajo Nation has never submitted a TIP that would regulate the
Plant under the Clean Air Act. In 2007 the EPA issued the first FIP to cover the Plant,
which set emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and an opacity limit on various
emissions. In 2009 the EPA began the rulemaking process to issue a FIP to apply
regional-haze regulations to the Plant. The Plant is within 300 km of 16 Class I areas,
including the Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, and Arches National Park.3 The air quality
and visibility are impaired in each of the 16 areas. See Proposed FIP, 75 Fed. Reg. at
64224.
B. The Endangered Species Act
3
See Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit
Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation (Proposed FIP), 75 Fed. Reg.
64221, 64224 (Oct. 19, 2010).
6
Under the ESA, whenever a federal agency proposes an action in which it has
discretion to act for the benefit of an endangered species, it must consult to insure that the
action “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); see 50 C.F.R. § 402.03 (2013) (§ 1536
applies “to all actions in which there is discretionary Federal involvement or control”).
The acting agency consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if the endangered
species is a terrestrial or freshwater species or with the National Marine Fisheries Service
if it is an anadromous or marine species. See id. § 402.01(b); Rio Grande Silvery
Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1105 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010). Agency
action is “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in
whole or in part, by Federal agencies.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (2013).
The first step in the consultation process is to determine whether the proposed
action “may affect a listed species or a critical habitat”; “[i]f so, the agency must
consult.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, 601 F.3d 1096 at 1105. If the agency decides its
action may affect a listed species, it can decide whether to pursue formal or informal
consultation. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b) (2013). Informal consultation ends either in a
finding that formal consultation is necessary or in a finding that “the action is not likely
to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat,” in which case “no further action is
necessary.” Id. § 402.13(a). Formal consultation is initiated by a written request that
includes “[a] description of the action to be considered.” Id. § 402.14(c)(1). It generally
concludes in a biological opinion, see id. §402.14(l), which assesses “whether the action
7
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,” id. § 402.14(h)(3). If the
biological opinion finds that jeopardy is likely, it must include, if possible, “reasonable
and prudent alternatives” to the proposed action. Id. At that point “the agency must
either terminate the action, implement the proposed alternative, or seek an exemption
from the Cabinet-level Endangered Species Committee pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1536(e).”
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 652 (2007).
C. Rulemaking at the Plant
In August 2009 the EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
asking for comments on its plan to regulate the Plant under the regional-haze program.4
The New Mexico Attorney General commented that the EPA should consider the benefits
of any control technologies on mercury emissions because mercury emissions from the
Plant were high and affected the health of two nearby species of endangered fish—the
Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. The comment also asserted that the EPA
was required to consult under the ESA on the effects of the rulemaking on endangered
species. The EPA did not consult.
In October 2010 the EPA proposed a FIP for the Plant under the regional-haze
rule. See Proposed FIP, 75 Fed. Reg. at 64221. The proposed FIP made a finding under
4
See Assessment of Anticipated Visibility Improvements at Surrounding Class I Areas
and Cost Effectiveness of Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power
Plant and Navajo Generating Station: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advanced Notice), 74 Fed. Reg. 44313 (Aug. 28, 2009).
8
the Tribal Authority Rule that it was “necessary or appropriate” to establish the BART
for NOx and PM emissions. See id. at 64222–23; 40 C.F.R. § 49.11(a) (2013). Both NOx
and PM contribute to visibility impairment. See Proposed FIP, 75 Fed. Reg. at 64224.
The EPA considered the five factors relevant to a BART determination, see id. at 64226–
32, and proposed specified limits for both NOx and PM to be effective no later than five
years after the effective date of the FIP. See id. at 64234–35.
In November 2010, APS submitted an alternative proposal to regulate NOx and
PM. One utility owner had decided to divest from the Plant, and APS bought out its
share in Units 4 and 5. As a result, APS decided to close Units 1–3 of the Plant. It
proposed closing Units 1–3 early, by January 1, 2014, and then receiving a two-year
extension (from the date for compliance in the proposed FIP) to install new selective-
catalytic-reduction technology on Units 4 and 5. The EPA found that this plan would
substantially reduce NOx and PM emissions three years before the EPA proposal would
require reductions and would “produce approximately 30% less NOx emissions per year
than EPA’s BART proposal beginning in 2019.”5 The EPA then prepared and circulated
for comments an alternative plan incorporating (but modifying) APS’s proposal. See id.
at 10530, 10535.
5
Supplemental Proposed Rule of Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for
Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo
Nation (Supplemental FIP), 76 Fed. Reg. 10530, 10535 (Feb. 25, 2011).
9
In May 2011, WildEarth and other environmental groups submitted comments on
the supplemental FIP, arguing that the EPA was required to consult with the Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the ESA because the proposed FIP would have an
effect on the endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker, which live in the
nearby San Juan River. WildEarth pointed to high levels of mercury and selenium
emitted by the Plant and argued that the EPA had to consult “given that the EPA itself
notes that its proposal could lead to greater control of mercury emissions,” which would
benefit the endangered fish. J.A., Vol. II at 349. WildEarth’s comments did not suggest
any specific way in which the FIP could be revised to lead to a greater decrease in
mercury or selenium emissions, except to suggest that the EPA regulate those pollutants
directly. The EPA still did not consult.
D. Final FIP
The EPA promulgated its final FIP for the Plant on August 24, 2012. It found that
it was necessary or appropriate to “require[e] [the Plant] to meet new emission limits for
NOx and PM.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 51621. The FIP required PM emissions from Units 4 and
5 to be limited to 0.015 pounds per million British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu). See
Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Four Corners Power Plant, Navajo Nation,
40 C.F.R. § 49.5512(i)(1) (2013). It allowed the Plant a choice of how to meet NOx
requirements; the Plant could either (1) add postcombustion controls on all units within
the next five years to meet a limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu, or (2) close Units 1–3 by January 1,
2014, and reduce NOx emissions on Units 4 and 5 to 0.098 lb/MMBtu by July 31, 2018.
10
See id. The EPA made a finding that the alternative proposed by APS, which included
closing Units 1–3, would “result in greater visibility improvement in surrounding Class I
areas at a lower cost” than the original BART proposal. Final FIP, 77 Fed. Reg. at
51621.
The EPA also evaluated reductions in emissions of other pollutants that would be
achieved under the two options. Under Option 1, the EPA’s proposed BART, the EPA
calculated that mercury emissions would drop from 594 lb/yr to 340 lb/yr, a decrease of
approximately 43%. Under Option 2, the alternative proposed by APS, the EPA
calculated that mercury emissions would drop even further—to 233 lb/year, a decrease of
approximately 61%. The EPA did not estimate decreases in selenium directly, but the
EPA’s regulations allow facilities to measure total filterable PM as a surrogate for
nonmercury metals, such as selenium.6 The EPA estimated that under Option 1 total PM
emissions would fall from 1,564 tons per year to 1,179 tons per year, a decrease of 25%,
whereas under Option 2 total PM emissions would fall from 1,564 tons per year to 886
tons per year, a decrease of approximately 43%.
The EPA also responded to comments it had received, including the WildEarth
comment that it needed to consult under the ESA. It said:
6
See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-
Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating United (MATS Rule), 77 Fed. Reg. 9304,
9367–68 (Feb. 16, 2012).
11
EPA disagrees with the commenter that determining BART and
promulgating this FIP for [the Plant] necessitates ESA Section 7
consultation. EPA understands that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) is primarily concerned about the effects of mercury and selenium on
endangered fish species in the San Juan River. EPA notes that under the
BART Alternative [Option 2], mercury and selenium emissions will be
reduced from [the Plant] due to the closure of Units 1–3. Additionally,
EPA’s national [Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS)] rule set new
emission limits for mercury that would apply to Units 1–3 at [the Plant] if
those units continue operation. EPA further notes that the goal of the
Regional Haze Rule is to reduce emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
in order to restore visibility to natural conditions at the mandatory Federal
Class I areas, and mercury and selenium do not affect visibility. Therefore,
EPA does not have authority to regulate emissions of mercury or selenium
under BART.
Final FIP, 77 Fed. Reg. at 51643–44.
WildEarth filed a petition for review on October 22, 2012.7 APS elected Option 2
of the FIP, shutting down Units 1–3 on December 30, 2013.
II. DISCUSSION
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, this court can set aside final agency
action if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). WildEarth’s opening brief contends that the EPA’s
failure to consult under the ESA rendered the FIP not in accordance with the ESA and
arbitrary. It argues that the ESA required the EPA to consult because the EPA had
discretionary authority under the Clean Air Act to include additional measures in the FIP
7
The petition was originally filed in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit granted
permission for APS to intervene. Responding to a motion to dismiss or transfer filed by
the EPA, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the proper venue is the Tenth Circuit and transferred
the case.
12
to protect the endangered fish from mercury and selenium emissions from the Plant. The
EPA and APS respond that the EPA had no such discretionary authority and no duty to
consult. WildEarth has contended that the EPA had discretion to take four additional
steps to reduce mercury and selenium emissions from the Plant that it may have taken if it
had consulted before issuing the FIP: (1) requiring baghouses (emissions filtering
devices) on Units 1‒3 of the Plant; (2) requiring APS to act sooner to employ selective
catalytic reduction on Units 4 and 5; (3) regulating sulfur dioxide emissions from the
Plant, with the collateral result of reducing mercury and selenium emissions; and (4)
directly regulating mercury and selenium emissions from the Plant. But the first
possibility has been mooted by the closure of Units 1‒3; the second two possibilities were
not presented to this court by WildEarth in a timely fashion, so we need not consider
whether the EPA had discretion to take those steps in the FIP; and the EPA had no duty
to consult with respect to the fourth possibility. Because WildEarth has not properly
presented a nonmoot ground for requiring the EPA to consult, we must deny its petition.
We address the four grounds in turn.
A. Baghouses
In its opening brief on appeal, WildEarth placed primary reliance on the argument
that the EPA could have required baghouses on Units 1–3 of the Plant if consultation had
convinced it of the need for further mercury and selenium emission reduction. Its theory
was that in determining BART, (1) the EPA needed to consider “nonair quality
environmental impacts,” 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2); (2) the impact from the deposition in
13
local streams of mercury and selenium emitted by the Plant was an impact of that type;
and (3) consultation could have led the EPA to require baghouses (which reduce NOx and
PM emissions) as part of the FIP because of their added advantage in reducing mercury
and selenium emissions. Now, however, Units 1–3 have been closed. This theory of
relief has therefore been mooted. There is nothing this court could do that would lead the
EPA ultimately to impose a baghouse requirement on facilities that have been
permanently shut down. See Copar Pumice Co. v. Tidwell, 603 F.3d 780, 792 (10th Cir.
2010) (“The core question in mootness inquiry is whether granting a present
determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
B. Timing of FIP Implementation
Recognizing that the baghouse issue is moot, WildEarth has presented its three
other suggestions of how consultation could have led to reduced emissions of mercury
and selenium. One suggestion, raised by WildEarth in a postbriefing letter to the court
submitted under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), was that the EPA could write the FIP alternative to
require APS to implement selective catalytic reduction on Units 4 and 5 before the
current July 31, 2018 deadline. But WildEarth did not make this argument in its opening
brief. The only mentions of selective catalytic reduction in WildEarth’s opening brief are
in the fact section describing the plan adopted in the FIP and a quote from the record that
“the [U.S. Government Accountability Office] reported that selective catalytic
reduction—one of the options under consideration [and ultimately selected] for NOx
14
controls at [the Plant] and [another nearby plant]—also substantially contributes to
reductions in mercury emissions.” Aplt. Br. at 41 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The brief’s only mention of the timing of installation is in a footnote that refers to Units
1–3, not Units 4 and 5: “EPA also has the discretion to determine the date for the
installation and operation of the new pollution controls. The longer [the Plant’s] Units 1,
2, and 3 operate, the more mercury is released into the Four Corners region by the plant.”
Id. at 45 n.14. These references hardly alerted opposing counsel or the court that
WildEarth was suggesting that consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service could lead
to advancing the date for installation of selective-catalytic-reduction technology on Units
4 and 5. “[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are
inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief.” Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d
1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007). The fact that another argument for relief has now failed (as
moot) is no excuse for raising a new argument at this stage of the appeal. We therefore
do not consider whether the EPA had discretion to consider whether it could advance the
date for installing selective-catalytic-reduction technology and, if so, whether that
discretion triggered a duty to consult.
C. Regulation of Sulfur Dioxide
WildEarth’s other untimely suggestion, also raised in a 28(j) letter, is that the EPA
could have regulated SO2 in this rulemaking and, had it chosen to do so, it could have
required specific control technologies for SO2 reduction that would have further reduced
mercury emissions from Units 4 and 5. This argument was not adequately presented in
15
WildEarth’s opening brief. SO2 was mentioned only once in the brief, in the discussion
of an expert report that described benefits of various control technologies; WildEarth
made no argument that the EPA could have regulated SO2 in this FIP. Hence, we decline
to consider the argument.
D. Regulation of Mercury and Selenium
This leaves only WildEarth’s fourth argument—namely, that as part of the FIP the
EPA could have regulated mercury and selenium directly (rather than as a collateral
product of other regulation, such as establishing the BART) and that this discretion to
regulate triggered a duty to consult. Before we address the merits of this argument,
however, we must resolve whether we have jurisdiction to do so.
1. Standing
“The Constitution limits the exercise of the judicial power to ‘cases’ and
‘controversies.’” WildEarth Guardians v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 690 F.3d 1174, 1181
(10th Cir. 2012). This limitation restricts the federal judicial power “to the traditional
role of Anglo-American courts, which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently
threatened injury to persons caused by private or official violation of the law.” Summers
v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009). “The doctrine of standing is one of
several doctrines that reflect this fundamental limitation.” Id. at 493.
To establish Article III standing:
a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the
16
defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81
(2000). These three requirements are commonly referred to as injury, causality, and
redressability.
WildEarth’s alleged injury—lack of consultation before promulgation of a final
FIP—is one of process, not result. For a procedural injury, the requirements for
Article III standing are somewhat relaxed, or at least conceptually expanded. See Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572 n.7 (1992). First, for an injury in fact
WildEarth “need not establish with certainty that adherence to the procedures would
necessarily change the agency’s ultimate decision.” Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193,
1216 n.37 (10th Cir. 1998). It suffices that the procedures “are designed to protect some
threatened concrete interest of [the person] that is the ultimate basis of standing.” S. Utah
Wilderness Alliance v. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, 620 F.3d
1227, 1234 (10th Cir. 2010) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]here
plaintiffs properly allege a procedural violation affecting a concrete interest[,] . . . the
injury results not from the agency’s decision, but from the agency’s uninformed
decisionmaking.” Id. at 1234 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus,
WildEarth need show only that compliance with the procedural requirements could have
better protected its concrete interests. Similarly, to establish redressibility it need show
only that the injury—lack of an informed decision—could be redressed by requiring the
17
agency to make a more informed decision. See id. at 1235 (“[T]he fact that [the agency]
refused to issue an updated recommendation also satisfies the causation and redressability
prongs—[the agency]’s recalcitrance caused an allegedly uninformed decision, and this
could be redressed by a favorable court decision, even if the Secretary’s ultimate decision
was the same.”)
The EPA and APS do not dispute (and we agree) that WildEarth has associational
standing if Mike Eisenfeld, a WildEarth member who lives not far from the Plant in
Farmington, has standing. But they challenge his standing under Article III.
Eisenfeld submitted an affidavit outlining the factual basis on which WildEarth
asserts standing. It describes his enjoyment of the San Juan River:
My family and I enjoy floating numerous stretches of the San Juan River
every year. We have a raft and our friends have river boats as well. We
float the San Juan River in Farmington, as well as on stretches downstream
in Utah. We swim in the river when we float. We enjoy floating the river,
but normally avoid the most polluted sections as we enjoy floating in areas
that are more natural and that seem cleaner. We normally float the San
Juan three times a year and intend to do so throughout the foreseeable
future. We intend to float the river in June and July of this summer.
Aplt. Br. Attach. 2 (Declaration of Mike Eisenfe[l]d), at 7. It then goes on to explain the
relationship between his river activities and the endangered fish:
I enjoy looking for and viewing all species of fish in the San Juan River.
When I am rafting in the San Juan River or taking a walk by the river in
Farmington, I often look for fish, including the Colorado pikeminnow and
razorback sucker. Unfortunately, their diminished numbers makes them
very hard to find. I will continue to recreate in and around the San Juan
River and its tributaries, and will continue to look for fish, including the
Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. I hope to point out one of
these fish to my children in the future. My enjoyment of the Colorado
18
River System would be increased if the Colorado pikeminnow and
razorback sucker recovered from their current endangered status and were
more abundant.
Id. at 8–9.
APS first argues that Eisenfeld has not shown the requisite injury. According to
APS, his alleged injury is not “concrete and particularized” because it shows only
“concern over future environmental harm.” Intervenor Br. at 27 (internal quotation
marks omitted). We disagree. Eisenfeld swore that he uses the river for recreational
purposes and he often looks for and views the endangered fish while using the river.
“[T]he desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is
undeniably a cognizable interest for the purpose of standing.” S. Utah Wilderness
Alliance, 620 F.3d at 1233 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sierra Club v.
U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 287 F.3d 1256, 1265 (10th Cir. 2002) (“To establish an injury-in-
fact from failure to perform a NEPA [(National Environmental Policy Act)] analysis, a
litigant must show: (1) that in making its decision without following the NEPA’s
procedures, the agency created an increased risk of actual, threatened, or imminent
environmental harm; and (2) that this increased risk of environmental harm injures its
concrete interest.”). APS correctly points out that the FIP would not increase emissions
of mercury or selenium, so Eisenfeld cannot possibly be worse off under the FIP than he
was beforehand. But the proper comparison is between what happens under the FIP and
what WildEarth contends could have happened had there been consultation before its
promulgation. See Natural Res. Def. Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776, 783–84 (9th Cir.
19
2014) (en banc) (because consultation could lead agency to revise contracts in ways
beneficial to endangered species, group had standing to challenge lack of consultation);
Ass’n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 673 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
(environmental groups had standing to challenge revised regulation regarding hazardous
air pollutants on the ground that the revisions could have been more stringent than
revised regulations adopted by agency).
APS’s reliance on Wyoming v. United States Department of Interior, 674 F.3d
1220, 1237 (10th Cir. 2012), is misplaced. Our holding that the petitioners lacked
standing was based on their failure to claim an environmental injury, not, as APS
suggests, on the ground that the potential nonenvironmental injury was too speculative.
We next turn to the argument by the EPA (joined by APS) that WildEarth has
failed to show causation; that is, that WildEarth has not shown that Eisenfeld’s injury is
fairly traceable to the EPA’s violation of the ESA. EPA argues that because the “FIP
does not license or in any other way authorize the general or continued operations of [the
Plant, it is] causally unrelated to the Plant’s mercury and selenium emissions.” Aplee.
Br. at 29. WildEarth responds that the EPA had a duty to consult about the dangers from
emissions of mercury and selenium to the endangered fish and that such consultation may
have led to measures that would have reduced these emissions beyond what the FIP
requires. Perhaps WildEarth is incorrect and there was no duty to consult; but that is a
merits issue, not an issue for standing. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 699 F.3d 530, 533 (D.C.
Cir. 2012) (“If correct on the merits, as we must assume for standing purposes, such a
20
challenge presents a clearly redressable injury.” (emphasis added)). And insofar as EPA
is arguing that the failure to consult caused no harm to Eisenfeld’s interests because the
FIP did not increase emissions of mercury or selenium from the Plant, it repeats APS’s
error in the injury argument; the failure to consult may have caused injury to Eisenfeld
because it eliminated the possibility that the FIP could have reduced those emissions still
further.
Finally, the EPA (again joined by APS) argues that WildEarth has failed to satisfy
the redressibility requirement for standing. It says that this court cannot redress
WildEarth’s injury because it was not permitted to regulate mercury and selenium in this
rulemaking, and therefore any decision to require the EPA to consult on the effects of
mercury and selenium could not influence the final decision. As with the EPA’s
causation argument, this is a merits argument. To show redressibility for an alleged
procedural violation of the ESA, a plaintiff “need[s] to show only that the relief
requested—that the agency follow the correct procedures—may influence the agency’s
ultimate decision.” Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220,
1226 (9th Cir. 2008). WildEarth contends that the EPA could have made a decision that
would have further reduced mercury and selenium emissions from the Plant. EPA argues
otherwise, but that is a contention that WildEarth has standing to present. If WildEarth
ultimately failed to persuade us of its contention, it would lose on the merits. In resolving
a standing issue, however, we must start from the premise that the plaintiff will prevail on
21
its merits argument. See Sierra Club, 699 F.3d at 533; Salmon Spawning & Recovery
Alliance v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 550 F.3d 1121, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Having established that WildEarth does have standing to challenge the FIP on the
ground that the EPA should have consulted because the FIP could have directly regulated
mercury and selenium, we turn now to the merits of the challenge.
2. Duty to Consult
WildEarth argues that the EPA had the duty to consult because the EPA had
discretion to directly regulate mercury and selenium in the FIP. But even if the EPA had
power to regulate these hazardous air pollutants in a FIP rulemaking,8 the EPA’s “action”
did not encompass the possibility of such direct regulation, and the subject matter of the
duty to consult is limited to the agency’s action. We explain.
The ESA provides:
8
We are not convinced that the EPA has the power to directly regulate mercury and
selenium through a FIP under the Tribal Authority Rule. Mercury and selenium
compounds are “hazardous air pollutants,” which are regulated under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7412. That section is separate from the sections
on regional haze, id. § 7491 et seq., and the sections that lay out the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, id. § 7409 et seq. State implementation plans come under the
second two programs, see id. §§ 7410, 7491(b)(2); but the hazardous-air-pollutant
regulations are emission standards that apply directly to source polluters, and the EPA
directly enforces these regulations through civil or criminal actions. See id. § 7413(a)(3);
United States v. B & W Inv. Props., 38 F.3d 362, 366 (7th Cir. 1994). Although a state
can incorporate the hazardous-air-pollutant regulations in its SIP “in order to receive a
general delegation of [Clean Air Act] implementation authority,” US Magnesium, LLC v.
U.S. EPA, 690 F.3d 1157, 1160 (10th Cir. 2012), we fail to see how the EPA could make
a finding under the Tribal Authority Rule that its own regulations were so inadequate that
further regulation of such pollutants in a FIP was “necessary or appropriate to protect air
quality,” 40 C.F.R. § 49.11 (2013).
22
Each federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of
the Secretary [of the Interior or of Commerce], insure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this
section referred to as an ‘agency action’) is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species.
16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Thus, the duty to consult is bounded by the agency action.
Consultation is called for to ensure that the action does not jeopardize endangered or
threatened species. The written request to consult does not describe all the things that the
requesting agency might have power to do but includes only “[a] description of the action
to be considered.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(c)(1) (2013) (emphasis added).
Action is defined as:
all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in
whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high
seas. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) actions intended to
conserve listed species or their habitat; (b) the promulgation of regulations;
(c) the granting of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of-way,
permits, or grants-in-aid; or (d) actions directly or indirectly causing
modifications to the land, water, or air.
Id. § 402.02. “Of particular significance is the affirmative nature of these words—
‘authorized, funded, carried [out]’—and the absence of a ‘failure to act’ from this list.
This stands in marked contrast to other sections of the ESA, which explicitly refer to an
agency’s failure to act.” W. Watersheds Project v. Matejko, 468 F.3d 1099, 1107–08 (9th
Cir. 2006). In Western Watersheds the Bureau of Land Management had interpreted the
Federal Land Policy Management Act to exempt certain vested water rights on federal
lands from the Bureau’s control. See 468 F.3d at 1104–05. The Bureau stated that it
would regulate these existing water rights only if the right-of-way holder substantially
23
deviated from the existing use or location of the ditch or canal. See id. at 1105.
Environmental groups argued that the Bureau was required to consult under the ESA
because it was making a “continuing decision not to enforce its regulatory discretion,”
which amounted to affirmative action. Id. at 1109. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding
that “[t]he [Bureau]’s challenged ‘action’ stands in marked contrast to cases involving
truly ‘affirmative’ actions.” Id.; see also Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas, 127 F.3d 80,
83 n.3, 84 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (decision to refrain from regulating baiting was likely not
an action, and therefore would probably not trigger compliance with NEPA or ESA
requirements); cf. Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Tidwell, 572 F.3d 1115, 1123 (10th Cir.
2009) (federal agency’s failure to exercise authority to amend a permit was not an action
and therefore did not trigger duty to perform environmental analysis under NEPA).
Just as the ESA consultation requirement cannot be invoked by characterizing
agency nonaction as action, it cannot be invoked by trying to piggyback nonaction on an
agency action by claiming that the nonaction is really part of some broader action. When
an agency action has clearly defined boundaries, we must respect those boundaries and
not describe inaction outside those boundaries as merely a component of the agency
action. Expanding in that manner the scope of what constitutes the “action” would make
meaningless the regulation requiring an agency seeking formal consultation to include
“[a] description of the action to be considered.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(c)(1) (2013). The
agency would have to set forth everything it might do. And requiring consultation on
everything the agency might do would hamstring government regulation in general and
24
would likely impede rather than advance environmental protection. Cf. Defenders of
Wildlife v. Andrus, 627 F.2d 1238, 1246 (“No agency could meet its NEPA obligations if
it had to prepare an environmental impact statement every time the agency had power to
act but did not do so.”).
We recognized this proposition in an earlier decision involving the same Plant at
issue here. In Arizona Public Service Co. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 562 F.3d 1116, 1131 (10th Cir. 2009), we considered the 2007 FIP promulgated
for the Plant by the EPA. See id. at 1121. The FIP set opacity limits and emissions limits
for some pollutants. See id. Environmental groups argued that the limits were
inadequate and that the Tribal Authority Rule required the EPA “to submit a plan meeting
the completeness criteria [that would be required for a SIP].” Id. at 1125. We rejected
the claim, holding that when regulating under the Tribal Authority Rule, the EPA had
discretion to regulate in steps. See id. We said that requiring the EPA to regulate as if it
were promulgating a SIP would “prevent the EPA from implementing any plan as
necessary or appropriate to protect air quality, absent a comprehensive analysis of all air
quality problems in an area.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[S]ome regulation
of the Plant,” we said, “is better than none at all.” Id.
Likewise, the EPA here decided to take action, but bounded the scope of that
action. The EPA’s authority under the Tribal Authority Rule is limited to actions that it
determines to be “necessary or appropriate to protect air quality,” 40 C.F.R. § 49.11
(2013), and the principal finding supporting the FIP was the finding that it was
25
“necessary or appropriate” to establish the BART at the Plant for NOx and PM emissions.
Proposed FIP, 75 Fed. Reg. at 64222–23 (internal quotation marks omitted); Final FIP,
77 Fed. Reg. at 51621.9 The scope of the EPA’s “action” was establishing that BART.
And the possibility that the EPA would have discretion—in some other regulatory
proceeding—to directly regulate mercury and selenium emissions at the Plant10 did not
impose a duty to consult under the ESA before taking the only action under consideration
at the time. Life is short. The EPA can, and by necessity must, proceed step by step. It
did not promulgate the NOx and PM haze requirements for the Plant until 35 years after
the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Requiring it to consult about all pollutants
9
The FIP also “conclude[d] that it is necessary or appropriate to set enforceable fugitive
dust/PM suppression measures to protect ambient air quality.” Final FIP, 77 Fed. Reg. at
51643. This additional finding does not affect our analysis.
10
We note that the EPA has promulgated a regulation that directly addresses the plant’s
mercury and selenium emissions: the MATS rule. The MATS rule applies to all coal-
fired power plants in the United States that have a “combustion unit of more than 25
megawatts [and] serve[] a generator that produces electricity for sale.” See MATS Rule,
77 Fed. Reg. at 9367. It sets a limit on mercury emissions of 1.2 lbs/TBtu. See id. at
9367. Sources can chose to measure total filterable PM as a proxy for selenium or to
measure selenium directly; the total PM limit is 3 x 10-2 lb/MMBtu and the selenium
limit is 5 lb/TBtu. See id. at 9367–68. The standards will go into effect at the Plant in
Spring 2015. See id. at 9407. WildEarth has made no argument that the EPA would have
selected standards more stringent than the MATS standards if it had regulated mercury
and selenium in the FIP. We see no reason why the EPA cannot choose to regulate
hazardous air pollutants and regional-haze pollutants, which are governed by different
statutory provisions with different goals, in separate rulemakings. And if WildEarth is
concerned that EPA’s direct regulation of mercury and selenium under the MATS rule
was not stringent enough, it can challenge that rule directly.
26
whenever it decides to address one or a few of them could only delay what is already a
prolonged process.11
III. CONCLUSION
WildEarth’s main concern, that baghouses should have been included in the
BART for Units 1–3, has been mooted by the closure of those units. And WildEarth has
failed to identify any discretion of the EPA to otherwise reduce mercury and selenium
pollution as part of the agency action at issue—promulgation of a FIP to reduce PM and
NOx at the Plant.
We DENY WildEarth’s petition for review.
11
It is worth adding that if WildEarth had preserved its argument about regulation of
SO2, it would lose on the merits of that issue for the same reasons that it loses on the
argument that the FIP should have directly regulated mercury and selenium. The EPA
never proposed regulating SO2 in this rulemaking. In the final FIP the EPA noted that it
had examined SO2 emissions in 2007 and that the comments it received about SO2 in this
rulemaking “essentially repackage[d] the comments [it] received and provided a response
for on the 2007 FIP.” Final FIP, 77 Fed. Reg. at 51638. EPA’s inaction in regulating
SO2 is not an agency action that would trigger a duty to consult under the ESA.
27