EPA Not Required to Consult on Air Quality Regulation Regarding Four Corners Power Plant
Posted in Court Decisions

On July 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential endangered species impacts of air quality regulations designed to reduce visual impacts of the Four Corners Power Plant on the Grand Canyon and other national parks.  WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 2014 U.S.App.LEXIS 13968.  The court concluded that the EPA decision not to regulate air pollutants with potential to impact endangered fish was not an action subject to the consultation requirements of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The decision suggests that federal agencies may avoid ESA consultation obligations by restricting the scope of federal agency actions.

EPA adopted a federal Clean Air Act implementation plan for the power plant in order to reduce haze in the Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde and Arches National Parks.  The EPA plan regulated oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter – two pollutants contributing to haze in the national parks.  EPA elected not to require the power plant to further reduce emissions of mercury and selenium.  Plaintiffs alleged that mercury and selenium emissions from the plant were having an adverse impact on endangered fish in a river close to the plant.  Plaintiffs claimed that EPA had discretion to impose additional restrictions on mercury and selenium emissions in the Clean Air Act implementation plan.

Relying on National Environmental Policy Act and ESA precedent that federal agency inaction does not constitute action, the court reasoned that the ESA consultation obligation cannot be invoked by trying to piggyback nonaction on an agency action by claiming that the nonaction is really part of a broader action.  The court concluded that the EPA’s consultation obligation was bounded by EPA’s limits on the scope of the Clear Air Act plan to the regulation of pollutants causing haze in the national parks.  [T]he possibility that the EPA would have discretion in some other regulatory proceeding to directly regulate mercury and selenium did not impose a duty to consult under the ESA. 

  • Robert D. Thornton

    Robert Thornton specializes in advising state and regional infrastructure authorities on environmental issues regarding large infrastructure projects. He has successfully defended more than $12 billion in regional ...

Nossaman’s Endangered Species Law & Policy blog focuses on news, events, and policies affecting endangered species issues in California and throughout the United States. Topics include listing and critical habitat decisions, conservation and recovery planning, inter-agency consultation, and related developments in law, policy, and science. We also inform readers about regulatory and legislative developments, as well as key court decisions.

Stay Connected




View All Nossaman Blogs
Jump to Page

We use cookies on this website to improve functionality, enhance performance, analyze website traffic and to enable social media features. To learn more, please see our Privacy Policy and our Terms & Conditions for additional detail.