N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILD EQUITY INSTITUTE,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. U.S. ENVIR ONM ENTAL PR OTEC TION AGENC Y, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-17502 D.C . No. 4:15-c v-02461-PJH

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a n d GOR DON, ** Distric t Judge . W ild Equity

file d this suit c la im ing tha t the Environm e nta l Prote c tion Age nc y (EPA) m ust re i n itia

te Enda nge re d Spe c i e s Ac t c onsulta tion with the

Fish 

# FIL ED AUG 28 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Andre w P. Gordon, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne v a da , sitting by de signa tion.and W ildlife Se rvic e a bout a 2001 pe rm it be c a

use 1) ne w inform ation shows the powe r pla nt a uthoriz e d unde r the pe rm it is c a using gre ate r harm to prote c te d spe c ie s tha

n unde rstood in 2001, a

nd 2) “ disc re t iona

ry Fe de ra l involve m e nt or c ontrol ove r [an a ge nc y ] a c t ion ha s be e n re t a ine d or is a

uthoriz e d by

la w.” 50 C .F.R . § 402.16; s e e also 16 U.S.C . § 1536(a)(2). The distric t c ourt dismisse d this c a se on the ground tha t the re is no fe de ra l a ge nc y a c tion on whic h the EPA c ould c onsult— the 2001 pe rm it e xpire d be fore c onstruc tion wa s c om

ple te and now ha s no ope rative e ffe c t. W ild Equity ’ s position on a

ppe a l is tha

t a s long a s the re wa s a ge nc y a c tion in the

pa s t a nd the a ge nc y ha s som e disc re tion ove r the subje c t m atte r of tha t a ge nc y a c tion, the c onditions for re initia

tion a re m e t. No ne w or ongoing age n c y a c tion is re quire d. The distric t c ourt is c o rre c t. Although the 2001 pe rm it wa s “ a ge nc y a c tion” at the tim e of its issua

nc e , its e xpira

t ion se ve re d a

ny c onne c tion to subse q

ue nt pla n t ope ra tion. The c urre nt pla nt ope ra t ion c annot be pla u sibly de sc ribe d a s

“ a uthoriz e d . . . by ” the e xpire d 2001 pe rm i t. 16 U.S.C . § 1536(a)(2). W ild Equity offe rs no via

ble sta t utory inte rpre tation or c a se la

w to bridge that ga

p. B e c a use the pla

nt wa s be ing ope rate d without a va lid pe rm it, the EPA brought a c ivil e nforc e m e nt suit tha t wa s se ttle d with a

c o nse nt de c re e in 2011, a llowing the

pla nt to re m a in in ope ration. Any argum e nt tha

t this c onse n t de c re e 2c onstitute s a ge n c y a c tion is waive d by

W ild Equity ’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t it “ doe s not re ly on the c onse nt de c re e a s a trigge ring e ve nt” re quiring EPA to re initia t e c onsulta tion. Se eUnite d State

s v . Laurie nti , 611 F.3d 530, 543 (9th C ir. 2010). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt is AFFIRM E D .

3