Court Opinion

ID: 9367836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 22:01:31.571289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.631528
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698   Date Filed: 02/01/2023   Page: 1
                                                                             FILED
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                       PUBLISH                           Tenth Circuit

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                   February 1, 2023

                                                                     Christopher M. Wolpert
                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      Clerk of Court
                          _________________________________

  DINÉ CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING
  OUR ENVIRONMENT; SAN JUAN
  CITIZENS ALLIANCE; SIERRA CLUB;
  WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,

        Plaintiffs - Appellants,

  v.                                                      No. 21-2116

  DEBRA HAALAND, in her official
  capacity as Secretary of the United States
  Department of the Interior; UNITED
  STATES BUREAU OF LAND
  MANAGEMENT, an agency within the
  United States Department of the Interior;
  TIM SPISAK, in his official capacity as
  Acting New Mexico State Director of the
  United States Bureau of Land
  Management; RICK FIELDS, in his
  official capacity as Field Manager of the
  United States Bureau of Land Management
  Farmington Field Office,

        Defendants - Appellees,

  and

  DJR ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC;
  SIMCOE, LLC; AMERICAN
  PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; ALICE
  BENALLY; LILLY COMANCHE;
  VIRGINIA HARRISON; SAMUEL
  HARRISON; DELORA HESUSE;
  VERNA MARTINEZ; LOIS PHOENIX;
  MABEL C. SENGER; ENDURING
  RESOURCES IV, LLC,
Appellate Case: 21-2116            Document: 010110806698   Date Filed: 02/01/2023   Page: 2

         Intervenor Defendants - Appellees.

  ------------------------------

  INSTITUTE FOR POLICY INTEGRITY
  AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL
  OF LAW,

         Amicus Curiae.
                             _________________________________

                         Appeal from the United States District Court
                               for the District of New Mexico
                             (D.C. No. 1:19-CV-00703-WJ-JFR)
                           _________________________________

 Kyle J. Tisdel, Western Environmental Law Center, Taos, New Mexico (Allyson A.
 Beasley, Western Environmental Law Center, Taos, New Mexico; Daniel L. Timmons
 and Samantha Ruscavage-Barz, WildEarth Guardians, Santa Fe, New Mexico, with him
 on the briefs), for Plaintiffs – Appellants.

 Bridget Kennedy McNeil, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S.
 Department of Justice (Michael C. Williams, Of Counsel, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the
 Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior; Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General, and
 Clare Boronow, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of
 Justice, with her on the briefs), Denver, Colorado, for Defendants – Appellees.

 Steven Rosenbaum, Covington & Burling LLP (Bradley K. Ervin with him on the brief),
 Washington, D.C., for Intervenor Defendant – Appellee American Petroleum Institute.

 Hadassah M. Reimer, Holland & Hart LLP, Jackson, Wyoming; John F. Shepherd and
 Tina R. Van Bockern, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado; and Robert J. Sutphin,
 Holland & Hart LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed a brief for Intervenor Defendants –
 Appellees DJR Energy Holdings, LLC and SIMCOE LLC.

 Jennifer H. Weddle, Troy A. Eid, and Harriet M. Retford, Greenberg Traurig LLP,
 Denver, Colorado, filed a brief for Intervenor Defendants – Appellees Alice Benally,
 Lilly Comanche, Virginia Harrison, Samuel Harrison, Dolora Hesuse, Verna Martinez,
 Lois Phoenix, and Mabel C. Senger.

                                                 2
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 3

 Jens Jensen, Keith D. Tooley, and Rebecca W. Watson, Welborn Sullivan Meck &
 Tooley, P.C., Denver, Colorado, filed a brief for Intervenor Defendant – Appellee
 Enduring Resources IV, LLC.

 Max Sarinsky, Institute for Policy Integrity, New York, New York, filed an amicus brief
 for the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

                          _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

 McHUGH, Circuit Judge.
                     _________________________________

       Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, San Juan Citizens Alliance,

 Sierra Club, and WildEarth Guardians (together, the “Citizen Groups”) challenge the

 Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”)1 environmental assessments (“EAs”) and

 environmental assessment addendum (“EA Addendum”) analyzing the environmental

 impact of 370 applications for permits to drill (“APDs”) for oil and gas in the

 Mancos Shale and Gallup Sandstone formations in the San Juan Basin of New

 Mexico. Importantly, these challenges come after a separate but related case in which

 this court remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate five EAs

 analyzing the impacts of APDs in the area because BLM had failed to consider the

 cumulative environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy

 Act (“NEPA”). After that decision, BLM prepared an EA Addendum to remedy the

       1
        Citizen Groups also named individuals in their official capacities as
 employees of the Department of the Interior or the Bureau of Land Management as
 defendants. For convenience, we refer to these defendants collectively as “BLM.”

                                            3
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698       Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 4

 defects in those five EAs, as well as potential defects in eighty-one other EAs that

 also supported approvals of APDs in the area.

       Citizen Groups now argue these eighty-one EAs and the EA Addendum violate

 NEPA because BLM (1) improperly predetermined the outcome of the EA

 Addendum and (2) failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the

 APD approvals related to greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, water resources, and

 air quality. BLM disagrees with Citizen Groups’ arguments and contends the

 challenges to some of the APDs were not justiciable because the APDs had not yet

 been approved. The district court affirmed the agency action, determining (1) Citizen

 Groups’ claims based on APD’s that had not been approved were not ripe for judicial

 review, (2) BLM did not unlawfully predetermine the outcome of the EA Addendum,

 and (3) BLM took a hard look at the environmental impacts of the APD approvals.

       We agree with BLM and the district court that the unapproved APDs are not

 ripe and accordingly, limit our review to the APDs that have been approved. Turning

 to Citizen Groups’ two primary arguments on the merits, we hold that (1) BLM did

 not improperly predetermine the outcome of the EA Addendum, but, even

 considering that addendum, (2) BLM’s analysis was arbitrary and capricious because

 it failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts from GHG emissions and

 hazardous air pollutant emissions. However, we conclude that BLM’s analysis of the

 cumulative impacts to water resources was sufficient under NEPA.

       We reverse and remand so that the district court may consider the appropriate

 remedy for the NEPA violations we identify. To assist with that reconsideration, we

                                            4
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 5

 adopt the test set out by the D.C. Circuit in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regul.

 Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146, 153 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In the event the district court concludes

 vacatur is not appropriate under that test, it should determine whether injunctive

 relief is warranted. Pending the district court’s decision on remand, which should be

 rendered expeditiously, we enjoin the approval of any additional APDs based on the

 existing EAs and EA Addendum.

                                I.     BACKGROUND

                                  A.    Factual History

        We begin by reviewing the procedural requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C.

 §§ 4321 et seq, and for managing oil and gas development in accordance with the

 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq. We

 then provide the factual and procedural background of this appeal before turning to

 the legal analysis.

 1.     NEPA

        NEPA is a federal environmental law that requires agencies to consider the

 environmental impact of their actions as part of the decisionmaking process and to

 inform the public about these impacts. Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. U.S.

 Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1021 (10th Cir. 2002). NEPA does not command

 agencies to reach any particular outcome, and it does not direct agencies to give

 special weight to environmental concerns. Id. at 1022. “[I]t requires only that the

 agency take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences before taking a major

 action.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). To that end, NEPA directs agencies to prepare

                                            5
Appellate Case: 21-2116   Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 6

 an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for “proposals for . . . major Federal

 actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C.

 § 4332(C); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1–1502.24 (1978)2 (relating to the EIS

 requirement).

       If an agency is unsure whether an action will significantly affect the

 environment, the agency may prepare an EA to determine whether an EIS is

 necessary. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5. If an agency completes an EA and determines that

 a proposed project will not significantly impact the human environment, the agency

 issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), and the action may proceed

 without an EIS. Id.; see also Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at

 1022–23.

 2.    FLPMA

       BLM manages oil and gas development on federal land pursuant to FLPMA

 and in compliance with NEPA. BLM does so through a three-step process. First,

 BLM prepares a land use plan known as a Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) for

 oil and gas leasing in an area. See 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(n) (defining “resource

 management plan”). After an RMP is approved, future agency actions must conform

 to the RMP. Id. § 1610.5-3. Second, BLM identifies the lands it will lease for oil and

 gas development and proceeds to sell and execute leases for those lands. Id. § 3120.1

       2
          The APD approvals at issue took place prior to the 2020 amendments, so we
 cite to the prior versions of the regulations.

                                           6
Appellate Case: 21-2116   Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 7

 et seq. Third, the lessee submits an APD for oil or gas. Id. § 3162.3-1(c). BLM must

 approve the APD before the lessee may begin drilling. Id. Prior to approving an APD,

 BLM will typically conduct a site-specific EA to determine whether the APD

 approval will significantly impact the environment. See, e.g., New Mexico ex rel.

 Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 716–17 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting

 that site-specific EAs may need to be conducted prior to leasing or prior to APD

 approval depending on circumstances).

 3.    Oil and Gas Development in the Mancos Shale and Gallup Sandstone Zones

       There are approximately 23,000 active oil and gas wells in the San Juan Basin

 of northern New Mexico. Approximately twenty years ago, BLM issued an RMP/EIS

 that considered the Mancos Shale and Gallup Sandstone zones in the San Juan Basin

 to be “a fully developed oil and gas play.” 79 Fed. Reg. 10548, 10548 (Feb. 25,

 2014). Since then, improvements to technologies known as horizontal drilling and

 hydraulic fracturing have made it economical to conduct further drilling for oil and

 gas in the area. Id. In 2014, BLM published a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Resource

 Management Plan Amendment and an Associated Environmental Impact Statement

 that would account for the newly anticipated oil and gas development in the area. Id.

 Before it finalized the new RMP/EIS,3 BLM began approving APDs in the Mancos

       3
          BLM issued a draft RMP/EIS in 2020, but the updated RMP/EIS has yet to
 be finalized. This court previously held that some of the Citizen Groups were not
 likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that BLM violated NEPA by tiering
 EAs to the 2003 RMP/EIS that did not consider the increased interest in drilling in
 the Mancos Shale and Gallup Sandstone zones. Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our

                                           7
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698       Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 8

 Shale and Gallup Sandstone zones through individual, site-specific EAs tiered to the

 2003 RMP/EIS.

 4.     Prior Lawsuit

        In prior litigation, some of the Citizen Groups challenged the site-specific EAs

 for hundreds of APDs approved in the Mancos Shale and Gallup Sandstone zones

 from 2012 through 2016. See Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v.

 Bernhardt (“Dine I”), 923 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2019). The district court in that matter

 affirmed BLM’s approval of the APDs. Id. at 836. On appeal, this court affirmed in

 part and reversed in part. Id. at 859. We affirmed most of the APDs because those

 Citizen Groups had not provided the complete EAs necessary to review BLM’s

 actions. Id. at 845 (limiting our NEPA review to only the six complete EAs in the

 record). However, there was sufficient evidence in the record to review the APDs

 associated with six of the EAs, and this court held BLM failed to take a hard look at

 the cumulative impacts to water resources from the reasonably foreseeable wells in

 five of those six EAs. Id. at 850–51, 856–59. Thus, we remanded to the district court

 with instructions to vacate the FONSIs and the associated APD approvals for the five

 wells. Id. at 859.

 Environment v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276, 1283–85 (10th Cir. 2016). The decision to tier
 the EAs and EA Addendum to the 2003 RMP/EIS is not at issue in this appeal.

                                            8
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698       Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 9

 5.    EA Addendum

       In accordance with this court’s decision, BLM prepared supplementary NEPA

 analysis with the necessary cumulative impacts analysis for the five EAs. In the

 meantime, Citizen Groups filed this lawsuit challenging thirty-two additional EAs on

 the same grounds raised against the EAs challenged in the prior lawsuit. In response,

 BLM issued an EA Addendum that included additional environmental analysis for

 eighty-one4 EAs for 370 additional wells that may have suffered from the same

 defects as the five EAs we reviewed in Dine I.

       BLM allowed the previously approved APDs to remain in place during the

 addendum process. According to BLM, the purpose of the EA Addendum was to

 determine whether the additional environmental analysis would support a FONSI or

 whether BLM would need to reopen its prior decisions on the APDs. In the EA

 Addendum, BLM considered how the APDs would affect the environment through air

 quality, GHG emissions, and groundwater. Based on the conclusions in the EA

 Addendum, BLM issued an individual Environmental Assessment Addendum and

 FONSI for each of the eighty-one EAs affected. These documents are nearly

 identical, stating “[t]his FONSI has been prepared to re-affirm the findings of the

 original EA and original FONSI for the selected Proposed Action alternative.” Joint

 App. Vol. 9 at 1923–Vol. 13 at 2489.

       4
         In the EA Addendum, BLM suggested the scope was expanded to include
 eighty-two EAs issued since 2014, but BLM identified only eighty-one EAs that
 would be affected by the EA Addendum.

                                            9
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 10

                                B.     Procedural History

        In the instant matter, Citizen Groups filed a Petition for Review of Agency

  Action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico challenging

  thirty-two EAs and FONSIs that preceded the approval of 255 APDs. In the petition,

  Citizen Groups argued the approvals of the APDs violated NEPA, and they requested

  that the court vacate BLM’s approvals of the APDs and enjoin BLM from approving

  any pending or future APD for horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing in the area.

  Citizens Groups filed this petition before BLM issued the EA Addendum and the

  subsequent individual Environmental Assessment Addenda and FONSIs.

        In response to the EA Addendum, individual addenda, and reaffirmed FONSIs,

  Citizen Groups filed an Amended and Supplemented Petition for Review of Agency

  Action challenging all eighty-one EAs and the 370 APD approvals analyzed in the

  EA Addendum. Citizen Groups specifically argued BLM (1) had improperly

  predetermined the outcome of the EA Addendum because BLM did not vacate or

  suspend its approval of the APDs while preparing the EA Addendum, and (2) failed

  to take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of

  approving the APDs as they relate to water resources, air quality and human health

  impacts, and GHG emissions and climate.

        While the matter was pending in the district court, several parties joined as

  intervenors: American Petroleum Institute (“API”); DJR Energy Holdings, LLC

  (“DJR”); Navajo citizens with allotment rights in the region (“Navajo Allottees”);

  Enduring Resources IV, LLC (“Enduring”); and SIMCOE LLC (collectively,

                                            10
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 11

  “Intervenors”). API is a national trade association of the oil and natural gas industry

  and represents over 600 companies, including companies with interests in the APDs

  at issue in this case. DJR is the owner and operator of twenty-two of the subject

  drilling permits, and SIMCOE is the owner and operator of seven permits to drill at

  issue in this case. Enduring is also an operator with ninety-one APDs challenged in

  this litigation, and Enduring argues it has different interests than the other operators

  because it uses special technology that results in net zero fresh water consumption

  during the drilling and operation process. The Navajo Allottees are Navajo Nation

  citizens who own mineral rights in the San Juan Basin. With the exception of

  Enduring, these Intervenors’ arguments center entirely on the appropriate remedy.

  Enduring also argues its APDs should not be vacated because BLM took a hard look

  at the environmental impacts of the APD approvals, especially in light of the special

  water technology Enduring uses.

        After the matter was fully briefed, the district court issued an order affirming

  the APD approvals and dismissing Citizens Groups’ claims. First, the court

  concluded Citizen Groups’ claims were not ripe as to several of the APDs because

  they had not yet been approved by BLM. The court also concluded the claims were

  moot as to a few other APDs because either the APDs had expired or the wells had

  been abandoned. Turning to the merits of Citizen Groups’ challenges to the

  remaining APDs, the court reasoned that (1) BLM had not improperly predetermined

  the findings of the EA Addendum because it issued the initial EAs in good faith and

  retained the power to modify or revoke the approval of the APDs, (2) it was

                                             11
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023   Page: 12

  appropriate to supplement the EAs and the administrative record with the EA

  Addendum, and (3) BLM adequately considered the environmental impacts as

  required by NEPA in the EA Addendum. Thus, the district court affirmed the agency

  action and dismissed Citizen Groups’ petition.

        Citizens Groups timely appeal the district court’s order and final judgment.

                                  II.    DISCUSSION

        Citizen Groups challenge the approval or pending approval of 370 APDs in the

  Mancos Shale area, arguing (1) the EA Addendum was unlawfully predetermined as

  applied to all APDs that were approved prior to its completion, and (2) BLM failed to

  take a hard look at the environmental impacts of all 370 APDs. We start by

  determining which APD approvals are properly before us and then turn to the merits

  of Citizen Groups’ arguments.

                                   A.      Jurisdiction

        We begin, as we must, by assessing our jurisdiction over Citizen Groups’

  claims. BLM argues that Citizen Groups’ challenges to 161 of the APDs are not ripe

  because these APDs have not yet been approved.5 We agree.

        5
          Since the district court entered its ruling, BLM has issued final decisions on a
  few more of the challenged APDs, rendering those challenges ripe. BLM submitted a
  Motion for Judicial Notice requesting that this court take judicial notice of an
  updated spreadsheet showing the status of the challenged APDs and an
  accompanying declaration from David Mankiewicz, Acting Field Manager of BLM’s
  Farmington Field Office, explaining the recent updates. According to the updated
  spreadsheet, there are currently 161 APDs that have not been approved or denied.
  These are the APDs designated as “not submitted,” “unapproved notice of staking,”
  “notice of staking,” “application for permit to drill,” or “unapproved application for

                                            12
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 13

                                      B.      Merits

        Before reviewing the merits with respect to the approved APDs, we set forth

  the general standard of review governing NEPA claims. Then, we consider the merits

  of the three main disputes raised in this appeal: (1) whether BLM unlawfully

  predetermined the outcome of the EA Addendum, (2) whether BLM failed to take a

  hard look at the environmental impact of the APDs in the initial EAs and the EA

  Addendum, and, if either of these violations occurred, (3) whether we should vacate

  the agency action or enjoin the development of the APDs.

  permit to drill.” Mankiewicz Decl. ¶ 27. Citizen Groups have not opposed the motion
  to take judicial notice of the declaration or the updated spreadsheet.
         It is within this court’s discretion to take judicial notice of a fact or a
  document. United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007).
  “Judicial notice is proper when a fact is beyond debate.” The Estate of Lockett by and
  through Lockett v. Fallin, 841 F.3d 1098, 1111 (10th Cir. 2016). Typically, we take
  judicial notice of facts that are a matter of public record. Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d
  1244, 1264 n.24 (10th Cir. 2006). The updated statuses came from BLM’s official
  database for maintaining federal well information. Mankiewicz Decl. ¶ 7. Statistics
  from this database are publicly available. See, e.g., Oil and Gas Statistics, U.S. Dep’t
  of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, https://www.blm.gov/programs-energy-
  and-minerals-oil-and-gas-oil-and-gas-statistics. Thus, it appears this updated
  information is “beyond debate.” Lockett, 841 F.3d at 1111. Because the motion is not
  contested, the information is not debatable, and it helps this court determine its
  jurisdiction, we grant BLM’s Motion for Judicial Notice and take judicial notice of
  the Declaration of David Mankiewicz and Exhibit A.1, which includes the
  spreadsheet noting the current statuses of each of the challenged APDs.
         BLM also argues that ten of Citizen Groups’ challenges are moot as to expired
  APDs or abandoned wells. However, Citizen Groups explicitly state they do not
  appeal the district court’s determination that the challenges to these APDs are moot.
  Appellants’ Br. at 4 n.1; Reply at 1 n.1. Accordingly, we do not review these ten
  APDs on appeal.
                                            13
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 14

        Standard of Review

        NEPA does not create a cause of action, so NEPA challenges are brought

  under the APA. We review a district court’s resolution of APA claims de novo,

  applying the same deferential standard toward the agency’s decisions that the district

  court applies. Biodiversity Conserv. All. v. Jiron, 762 F.3d 1036, 1059 (10th Cir.

  2014); Utah Env’t Cong. v. Bosworth, 443 F.3d 732, 739 (10th Cir. 2006). This

  means we will not overturn an agency’s decision “unless it is ‘arbitrary, capricious,

  an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.’” Utah Env’t

  Cong., 443 F.3d at 739 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). An agency action is arbitrary

  and capricious

        if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to
        consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,
        offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence
        before the agency, or if the agency action is so implausible that it could
        not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency
        expertise.

  Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1227 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal

  quotation marks omitted). “[W]e also accord agency action a presumption of

  validity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The challenger “bears the burden of

  persuasion” to show that the agency action is arbitrary and capricious. N.M. Health

  Connections v. HHS, 946 F.3d 1138, 1162 (10th Cir. 2019). “Our deference to the

  agency is especially strong where the challenged decisions involve technical or

  scientific matters within the agency’s area of expertise.” Dine I, 923 F.3d at 839

  (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                            14
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 15

        Predetermination

        Citizen Groups contend BLM violated NEPA because BLM approved the

  APDs prior to preparing the EA Addendum and did not vacate, suspend, or withdraw

  those approvals while gathering additional information about the environmental

  impact of the actions. In Citizen Groups’ opinion, BLM unlawfully predetermined

  the outcome of the EA Addendum. BLM argues its supplemental environmental

  analysis was conducted in good faith, and the agency was prepared to revoke the

  APD approvals if the supplementary analysis showed that was necessary. We agree

  with BLM that in this situation—where BLM voluntarily conducted supplementary

  environmental analysis—BLM’s choice not to vacate or suspend the underlying

  APDs pending that supplemental analysis did not render its decision unlawfully

  predetermined.

        Because NEPA is concerned with agency consideration of environmental

  impacts as part of the decisionmaking process, NEPA “requires federal agencies to

  prepare an EIS [or EA] prior to taking major federal action.” Utahns for Better

  Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing 42

  U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370d). In other words, the NEPA analysis must be “prepared early

  enough so that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the

  decisionmaking process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions

  already made.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5; see also Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish &

  Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692, 712 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting environmental analysis is

  not meant to “rationalize a decision already made” (quoting Metcalf v. Daley, 214

                                            15
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023       Page: 16

  F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000))). However, “NEPA does not require agency

  officials to be ‘subjectively impartial’” while preparing the environmental analysis.

  Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 712 (quoting Env’t Def. Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Eng’rs

  of the U.S. Army, 470 F.2d 289, 295 (8th Cir. 1972)). That is, “[a]n agency can have

  a preferred alternative in mind when it conducts a NEPA analysis.” Id. Even with a

  preferred alternative, NEPA requires that the environmental analysis “be timely[] and

  [] taken objectively and in good faith.” Id. (quoting Metcalf, 214 F.3d at 1142).

         A petitioner challenging an agency action must meet a high standard to show

  the agency engaged in unlawful predetermination. Id. at 714. Specifically, a

  petitioner must show “that the agency has irreversibly and irretrievably committed

  itself to a plan of action that is dependent upon the NEPA environmental analysis

  producing a certain outcome, before the agency has completed that environmental

  analysis.” Id. at 714–15. An agency does not engage in unlawful predetermination

  “simply because the agency’s planning, or internal or external negotiations, seriously

  contemplated, or took into account, the possibility that a particular environmental

  outcome would be the result of its NEPA review of environmental effect.” Id. at 715.

  But if a petitioner meets this high standard to show unlawful predetermination, “the

  agency likely has failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of its

  actions.” Id. at 713.

         The typical predetermination analysis does not fit well with the facts of this

  case. Normally, this analysis asks whether an agency irreversibly and irretrievably

  committed itself to a plan of action prior to completing the required analysis under

                                             16
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 17

  NEPA. See id. at 714–15. But, in this case, BLM completed the NEPA process prior

  to approving the APDs in question and then voluntarily chose to supplement its

  analysis with an EA Addendum addressing potential shortfalls in the original EAs.

  By the time this court published its decision in Dine I, 923 F.3d 831, prompting BLM

  to supplement its analysis for the EAs in question, BLM had committed itself to a

  plan of action because it had already approved the APDs in question. But BLM took

  no new actions while working on the EA Addendum—it simply maintained the status

  quo. And, as BLM contends, it retained the authority to withdraw the APDs if its

  subsequent investigation uncovered more significant environmental impacts than its

  initial assessment. See Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1853 (explaining BLM would review the

  EAs and APDs and determine whether to affirm its original decisions or reconsider

  them); see also 42 U.S.C. § 6506a(k)(2) (“The Secretary may direct or assent to the

  suspension of operations and production on any lease or unit.”); Barlow & Haun, Inc.

  v. United States, 805 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (recognizing BLM’s authority

  to impose conditions after lease was already granted). Because BLM was maintaining

  the status quo, while voluntarily addressing potential deficiencies in its original EAs,

  this case does not fit neatly into the predetermination standard.

        Citizen Groups point to our decision in New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v.

  Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 718 (10th Cir. 2009), as support for its position

  that “issuing an oil and gas lease” “constitutes an irretrievable commitment of

  resources.” But Citizen Groups have not identified any binding authority addressing

  the unique situation here—where BLM had completed the NEPA process, approved

                                             17
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 18

  APDs, and then later decided to supplement its analysis. Although the approval of an

  APD in the first instance is typically considered an irretrievable and irreversible

  commitment to a plan of action, this court has not held that vacatur of prior

  commitments is required when BLM decides to conduct supplemental analysis.

  Indeed, Citizen Groups’ primary predetermination argument—that BLM should have

  vacated or suspended the approval of the underlying APDs prior to conducting the

  supplemental analysis—suggests that BLM maintained discretion to reopen the

  approvals and vacate the APDs following completion of the supplementary analysis.

        BLM argues it conducted the supplemental analysis in good faith with this

  discretion in mind—using the supplemental analysis to determine whether reopening

  and vacating the underlying APDs was necessary. Citizen Groups and BLM agree

  that BLM had the option to reopen and vacate the APDs at issue—their dispute is

  over when this needed to happen. Two sources—(1) regulations about

  supplementation under NEPA and (2) case law suggesting vacatur is not always

  necessary to remedy a NEPA violation—support BLM’s position that conducting

  supplementary analysis under NEPA does not require BLM to first reverse or vacate

  prior commitments.

        First, BLM argues that NEPA’s implementing regulations’ silence on vacating

  agency actions during periods of supplementary environmental analysis demonstrates

  that conducting supplementary analysis without vacating the underlying action is not

  unlawful predetermination. BLM is correct that the regulations guiding the NEPA

  process do not require an agency to suspend agency action while preparing a

                                             18
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 19

  supplemental environmental review. NEPA’s implementing regulations describe the

  process agencies should use when conducting a NEPA analysis,6 and 40 C.F.R.

  § 1502.9(c) describes when an agency is required or permitted to supplement an

  existing NEPA analysis. In relevant part, the regulation states,

        (c) Agencies:
               (1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental
               impact statements if:
               (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that
               are relevant to environmental concerns; or
               (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant
               to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
               impacts.
               (2) May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that
               the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so.

  40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c). In other words, an agency is required to supplement when

  there are changes to the agency’s plan or changes in circumstances or information

  that would impact the environment, and an agency may prepare supplements as

  desired to further consider environmental impacts. Nowhere does the regulation

  require that the agency vacate or suspend the prior decision subject to supplemental

  analysis. Although this regulation speaks to supplementation of an EIS, rather than an

  EA, it supports BLM’s argument that supplementation does not require vacatur to

  avoid unlawful predetermination.

        6
         “The Council on Environmental Quality issued regulations implementing the
  procedural provisions of NEPA.” Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp.,
  305 F.3d 1152, 1162 n.2 (10th Cir. 2002).

                                             19
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 20

        If Citizen Groups’ argument were correct—that an agency must vacate any

  commitments to plans of action prior to engaging in supplemental analysis to avoid

  unlawful predetermination—then any time an agency engaged in the required

  supplemental analysis outlined in 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1), the agency would first

  have to vacate or suspend any underlying agency action. The regulation’s silence on

  that point lends support to BLM’s argument that vacatur during supplemental

  analysis is not mandatory.

        Second, BLM notes this court has held an agency action violated NEPA

  without requiring vacatur of the underlying decision, which also suggests vacatur is

  not required to avoid unlawful predetermination in the context of supplemental

  environmental analysis. See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 870

  F.3d 1222, 1240 (10th Cir. 2017). In WildEarth Guardians, we held that BLM acted

  arbitrarily and capriciously by determining that a decision to issue new leases on coal

  tracts, compared to a no-action alternative, would have no impact on climate change

  because “the same amount of coal would be sourced from elsewhere.” Id. at 1228.

  But despite identifying this NEPA violation, we chose not to vacate the impacted

  leases, instead remanding for the district court to determine if some narrower form of

  injunctive relief was appropriate. Id. at 1240. By inviting the district court to consider

  a remedy other than vacatur of the impacted leases, we implicitly recognized that

  supplementary NEPA analysis is not unlawfully predetermined simply because the

  previously approved action is not first vacated.

                                             20
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 21

        Citizen Groups counter by directing us to a 1992 opinion from the Southern

  District of Florida, Protect Key West v. Cheney, 795 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D. Fla. 1992),

  suggesting that belated environmental analysis cannot cure a deficient EA. In Protect

  Key West, the Navy planned a housing project in the City of Key West, Florida. Id. at

  1554. In preparation for that project, the Navy prepared an eleven-page EA with very

  little environmental discussion and no citations, issued a FONSI, and approved the

  housing project. Id. at 1554, 1559–60. After moving ahead with the housing project,

  the Navy conducted studies, surveys, and investigations, and supplemented the EA

  with these documents after the fact to justify the FONSI. Id. at 1560. The court

  concluded the Navy violated NEPA because the EA did not adequately consider the

  environmental impacts prior to the agency decision. Id. Rather, the Navy decided to

  supplement the EA with the necessary environmental information supporting the

  decision after committing to the housing project. Id. at 1561–62. This, the court

  concluded, violated NEPA’s intent to account for “environmental considerations in

  the initial decisionmaking process.” Id. at 1562. Therefore, the court concluded the

  Navy had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, enjoined the housing project, and

  ordered the Navy to prepare an adequate EA. Id. at 1563.

        According to Citizen Groups, BLM violated NEPA in a similar way because

  its initial EAs supporting the APD approvals were likely deficient, and BLM added

  more analysis after the fact without first vacating and reconsidering its decisions.

  Protect Key West is easily distinguishable from this case. There, the Navy conducted

  almost no environmental analysis and essentially used a bare bones EA as a

                                             21
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 22

  placeholder. In Protect Key West, the Navy was not performing supplemental

  analysis at all. Instead, it simply delayed its initial environmental analysis until after

  it had approved the housing project. Here, BLM performed an extensive

  environmental analysis before approving the APDs. Only after it became aware years

  later of potential deficiencies in that initial NEPA process did BLM conduct

  supplementary environmental analysis.

         BLM did not engage in unlawful predetermination by conducting the

  supplementary analysis in the EA Addendum without first vacating the underlying

  APD approvals because BLM did not “irreversibly and irretrievably commit[] itself

  to a plan of action that [wa]s dependent upon the NEPA environmental analysis

  producing a certain outcome.” Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 715. While working on

  the EA Addendum, BLM stated the APD “approvals remain[ed] in place” and

  explained it would “review the [81] EAs and the associated 370 APDs and determine

  whether to affirm BLM’s original decision finding no significant impact and

  approving the APD or whether to reconsider that decision.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at

  1853. Although BLM may have had the preferred outcome of not having to reopen

  the underlying APDs, it conducted the supplementary analysis in good faith to

  determine whether it could affirm the underlying FONSI and APD approvals. See

  Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 714 (“Predetermination is different in kind from mere

  subjective impartiality.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Just as Citizen Groups

  argue BLM could have vacated the APD approvals prior to working on the EA

  Addendum, BLM maintained the discretion to reopen its original decision and vacate

                                              22
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 23

  the APD approvals if the EA Addendum showed this was necessary. The fact that

  BLM ultimately affirmed its original decision does not make the decision unlawfully

  predetermined where BLM maintained the option to reopen and vacate the APDs

  throughout the supplemental assessment process.

        Hard Look

        In addition to their predetermination argument, Citizen Groups argue BLM

  acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to take a hard look at the environmental

  impacts of the APD approvals. During agencies’ decisionmaking processes, NEPA

  specifically requires agencies to “take a hard look at environmental consequences” of

  a proposed action.7 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350

  (1989) (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 (1976)). In doing so, the

  agencies must consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of

  the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16 (environmental consequences), 1508.7

  (cumulative impact), 1508.8 (direct and indirect effects). Direct effects are those

  “caused by the action and occur at the same time and place,” and indirect effects are

  “caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still

  reasonably foreseeable.” Id. § 1508.8. A cumulative impact “is the impact on the

        7
          We do not “view ‘hard look’ as a requirement going beyond the APA
  standard of review” or applying a “heightened standard.” See WildEarth Guardians v.
  Conner, 920 F.3d 1245, 1256 n.2 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing FCC v. Fox Television
  Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513–16 (2009)). So, when assessing whether agencies
  took a “hard look,” we are applying the APA standard of review, determining
  whether agencies’ actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
  otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

                                             23
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 24

  environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to

  other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what

  agency . . . or person undertakes such actions.” Id. § 1508.7. In each of these

  contexts, the agency must evaluate the “‘ecological, . . . economic, [and] social’

  impacts of a proposed action.” High Country Conservation Advocs. v. U.S. Forest

  Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1190 (D. Colo. 2014) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8).

        When “considering whether the agency took a ‘hard look,’ we consider only

  the agency’s reasoning at the time of decisionmaking, excluding post-hoc

  rationalization concocted by counsel in briefs or argument.” Richardson, 565 F.3d at

  704 (citation omitted). We may also consider non-NEPA documents that have been

  incorporated by reference into the NEPA documents. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.21

  (requiring agencies to “incorporate material into an [EIS] by reference” to “cut down

  on bulk”).

        In our review, we apply “[a] presumption of validity [] to the agency action[,]

  and the burden of proof rests with the appellants who challenge such action.”

  Richardson, 565 F.3d at 704 (quotation marks omitted). Moreover, we do not “decide

  the propriety of competing methodologies”; we “determine simply whether the

  challenged method had a rational basis and took into consideration the relevant

  factors.” Silverton Snowmobile Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772, 782 (10th

  Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). “Deficiencies in an EIS that are mere

  ‘flyspecks’ and do not defeat NEPA’s goals of informed decisionmaking and

  informed public comment will not lead to reversal.” Richardson, 565 F.3d at 704.

                                            24
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 25

        Citizen Groups argue BLM failed to take a hard look at (1) direct effects,

  indirect effects, and cumulative impacts of GHG emissions; (2) cumulative impacts

  to water resources; and (3) cumulative impacts to air quality and health. Because we

  have determined the EA Addendum was not based on unlawful predetermination, we

  consider the EA Addendum when assessing whether BLM took a hard look. Applying

  these standards, we now review BLM’s analysis of these three areas, beginning with

  the impacts of GHG emissions.

        a.     Impacts of GHG emissions from the APDs

        “The impact of [GHG] emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of []

  impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct.” Ctr. for Biological

  Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th Cir.

  2008). Accordingly, BLM considered the impact of GHG emissions in both the initial

  EAs and the EA Addendum. Citizen Groups argue that despite this analysis, BLM

  failed to take a hard look at (1) the direct and indirect effects of the GHG emissions

  and (2) the cumulative impact of the GHG emissions of the APDs in the initial EAs

  and the EA Addendum. We address each argument in turn.

               i.     Direct and indirect emissions

        Citizen Groups raise two challenges to BLM’s methodologies for analyzing

  the direct and indirect effects of the GHG emissions. First, they argue BLM erred in

  calculating the amount of direct and indirect emissions. Second, they argue BLM

  used a low value for the global warming potential of methane. In these ways, Citizen

                                            25
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 26

  Groups contend BLM failed to take a hard look at the effect of the direct and indirect

  emissions.

                      1)     Calculating direct and indirect GHG emissions

        First, Citizen Groups argue BLM improperly quantified the total direct

  emissions of the gas and oil wells because it included only the annual GHG emissions

  from operating the wells, even though BLM assumed the wells would each have a

  twenty-year life span. After Citizen Groups commented about this alleged deficiency,

  BLM replied that it had “included a direct and cumulative impact analysis which

  includes lifetime emissions from both construction and operation for the APDs at

  hand” in the EA Addendum. Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1909. But BLM is mistaken. BLM

  calculated only the annual GHG emissions from the wells and used this same number

  to represent the total emissions for the twenty-year life span of the wells in the EA

  Addendum. See infra. In its response brief on appeal, BLM changes course and

  points to its 2018 Air Resources Technical Report (“2018 ARTR”) that was

  incorporated by reference into the EA Addendum. In the 2018 ARTR, BLM

  explained that it used annual estimates of GHG emissions for operating the wells

  because “[i]t is not possible to estimate the lifespan of an individual well” or “to

  incorporate the decline curve into results” from declining production over time. Joint

  App. Vol. 4 at 946; see also Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1866 (incorporating by reference the

  2018 ARTR into the EA Addendum).

        In reply, Citizen Groups note that despite the alleged infeasibility of

  estimating the lifespan of an oil or gas well, BLM nevertheless assumed a twenty-

                                             26
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023   Page: 27

  year lifespan for downstream emissions. Citizen Groups also point to Table 14 in the

  EA Addendum, included here for reference, which purports to estimate the

  “Combined Downstream/End-Use GHG Emissions from the 370 subject wells over

  the predicted 20-year well life.”

  Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1877. This table estimates the total emissions from the crude oil

  and natural gas production of the 370 wells over twenty years based on the “decline

  curves representative of wells within the San Juan Basin.” Id. at 1876–77. But the

  value for the estimated emissions for constructing and operating the wells in Table

  14—498,182.8 MT CO2e—is the same value given for the estimated annual

  emissions for constructing and operating the wells in Table 12. See below.

                                            27
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698          Date Filed: 02/01/2023   Page: 28

  Id. at 1874. Table 14 then adds this annual value to the estimated downstream end-

  use GHG emissions from crude oil and natural gas to show the total estimated

  lifetime GHG emissions for all 370 wells. Id. at 1877.

        While we are deferential to the agency when it comes to the methodology the

  agency chooses to use, the agency’s methodology must be rational—and not arbitrary

  or capricious. See Silverton Snowmobile Club, 433 F.3d at 782. Citizen Groups

  contend it was unreasonable for BLM to use annual estimates to represent the direct

  emissions of GHGs. That decision may not be scientifically inaccurate or

  unreasonable in some contexts, but here, BLM used the estimated annual GHG

  emissions from the construction and operation of the wells to calculate the total

  estimated emissions for all 370 wells over twenty years.8 We agree with Citizen

        8
          The annual emission estimate for the operation of the wells was an
  overestimate because BLM assumed all 370 wells would be gas-producing, and
  therefore would emit more GHGs in their operations than oil wells. But it is highly
  unlikely that this overestimate in a single year could offset the additional emissions
  from all 370 wells for another nineteen years of operation.

                                             28
Appellate Case: 21-2116      Document: 010110806698      Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 29

  Groups that this methodology is unreasonable because it uses the emissions

  calculated for one year to represent the estimated direct and indirect emissions over a

  twenty-year period.

        BLM contends it limited the estimate for direct emissions to annual emissions

  for the operation of the wells because it could not estimate the lifespan or the decline

  curve of emissions from the wells. Yet, in the EA Addendum, BLM was able to use

  data from wells in the area to estimate a probable lifespan of twenty years and to

  estimate the decline curves when it calculated downstream emissions. See Joint App.

  Vol. 9 at 1876 (stating the production values “were calculated using decline curves

  representative of wells within the San Juan Basin”). BLM has not explained why

  these assumptions would be applicable to calculate the estimated downstream

  emissions but not the direct emissions from operating the wells.

        In sum, BLM’s justification for not calculating the direct GHG emissions over

  the lifetime of the wells is inconsistent with the record, and BLM unreasonably used

  one year of direct emissions to represent twenty years’ worth of total emissions.

  BLM did not have to use one specific methodology to calculate the twenty-year

  emissions total, but the methodology selected must be reasonable. Here, it was not.

  Thus, BLM arbitrarily and capriciously calculated the GHG emissions and failed to

  take a hard look at the direct and indirect impacts of GHG emissions from the APDs.

                        2)    Global warming potential of methane

        Second, Citizen Groups challenge BLM’s method for calculating the warming

  potential for methane and BLM’s failure to consider the short-term effects of

                                             29
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 30

  approving the APDs. In the EA Addendum, BLM noted that “[t]he two primary

  GHGs associated with the oil and gas industry are CO2 [carbon dioxide] and CH4

  [methane].” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1872. Methane has a stronger greenhouse effect than

  carbon dioxide, and it also has a “shorter atmospheric lifetime” than carbon dioxide.

  Joint App. Vol. 5 at 1160. To account for the differences between the different

  GHGs, experts calculate the global warming potential (“GWP”) over a specific time

  horizon for each gas compared to carbon dioxide to calculate the carbon dioxide

  equivalent (“CO2e”).

        In the EA Addendum, BLM noted that methane “has a [GWP] that is 21 to 28

  times greater than the warming potential” of carbon dioxide. Joint App. Vol. 9 at

  1872. This range for the GWP factor comes from an evaluation of the one hundred-

  year warming potential of methane compared to carbon dioxide. But Citizen Groups

  note that BLM’s reports show methane has greater near-term climate impacts and

  argue BLM should have used a shorter, twenty-year time horizon to calculate the

  GWP. In the twenty-year warming potential, methane’s GWP is eighty-four—

  significantly higher than the twenty-one to twenty-eight GWP value BLM used based

  on the one hundred-year warming potential. Citizen Groups argue BLM should have

  considered the twenty-year warming potential values because they are more accurate,

  and BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by using the one hundred-year warming

  potential because it did not explain its decision to do so. For the first time on appeal,

  Citizen Groups also argue BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by using an

  outdated GWP range as reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s

                                             30
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 31

  (“IPCC”) fourth report instead of relying on the IPCC’s fifth report for the one

  hundred-year GWP for methane.9 They note that BLM cited and used the fifth report

  in at least one of the initial EAs but then reverted to the older fourth report to prepare

  the EA Addendum without explanation.

        In response, BLM argues it considered the twenty-year warming potential

  compared to the one hundred-year warming potential of methane in the 2018 ARTR

  and the 2019 white paper on GHG emissions. BLM points to the 2019 white paper as

  providing its rationale for using the one hundred-year timeline and thus the twenty-

  one to twenty-eight GWP range in the EA Addendum. That 2019 white paper states

        BLM uses the 100-year time horizon since most of the climate change
        impacts derived from climate models are expressed toward the end of the
        century. Also, in accordance with international GHG reporting standards
        under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
        (UNFCCC) and in order to maintain consistent comparisons over the years,
        official GHG emission estimates for the United States are reported based on
        the GWP values given in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC
        (IPCC 2007).
  Joint App. Vol. 4 at 950. In response to Citizen Groups’ comment raising its concern

  with use of the one hundred-year time horizon, BLM explained that it applied the one

  hundred-year timeline “since most of the climate change impacts derived from

  climate models are expressed toward the end of the century” and “to maintain

  consistent comparisons over the years.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1910. Addressing

        9
          Although Citizen Groups raise this argument for the first time on appeal,
  BLM did not argue that the argument was waived in its response brief, so the waiver
  has been waived. See Schell v. Chief Just. & Justs. of Okla. Sup. Ct., 11 F.4th 1178,
  1192 n.6 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting that “failure of party to argue waiver results in
  waiver of initial waiver argument”).
                                             31
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 32

  Citizen Groups’ argument that BLM should have used the fifth report for the one

  hundred-year GWP for methane, BLM contends the 2019 white paper explained that

  BLM uses the fourth report for calculating official GHG emissions consistently.

        Citizen Groups maintain that BLM’s justification for using the one

  hundred-year time horizon for the GWP is not sufficient. They support their

  argument by citing to a District of Montana case that held “BLM violated NEPA

  where it failed to justify its use of GWPs based on a 100-year time horizon rather

  than the 20-year time horizon of the RMPs.” W. Org. of Res. Councils v. BLM, No.

  CV 16-21-GF-BMM, 2018 WL 1475470, at *18 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2018). In that

  case, BLM chose to use the “100-year time horizon based on an agreement made by

  the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Id. at

  *15. That is, BLM used the one hundred-year time horizon because of “a political

  agreement between nations rather than [] science.” Id. That, according to the District

  of Montana, was arbitrary and capricious and violated NEPA, which requires

  “accurate scientific analysis.” See id. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). But Western

  Organizations Resources Council is not binding on this court, and we do not find its

  reasoning persuasive under the current facts.

        NEPA’s implementing regulations require the information in an environmental

  analysis to “be of high quality” and supported by “[a]ccurate scientific analysis.” 40

  C.F.R. § 1500.1(b); see also id. at § 1502.24 (requiring agencies to “insure . . . the

  scientific integrity” of the analyses in the EISs). And “[b]oth short- and long-term

  effects are relevant.” Biodiversity Conservation All. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 765 F.3d

                                             32
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698       Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 33

  1264, 1267 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a)). With that in mind,

  “[a]n agency has discretion to choose a methodology, so long as it explains why it is

  reliable.” Hillsdale Env’t Loss Prevention, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 702

  F.3d 1156, 1178 (10th Cir. 2012). Choosing to use a method that has been adopted by

  a respected international body, such as the IPCC’s fourth report used here, is one way

  to demonstrate reliability.

        Further, BLM did not discuss the GWP for only the one hundred-year time

  horizon. Rather, it discussed the different GWPs for methane based on twenty-year

  time horizons and one hundred-year time horizons in its documents supporting the

  EA Addendum. BLM then explained that it used the GWP for the one hundred-year

  time horizon to support consistent reporting standards. Citizen Groups have not

  argued the one hundred-year time horizon for calculating methane’s warming

  potential is an inaccurate scientific analysis. They argue instead that a twenty-year

  time horizon for calculating warming potential would more accurately represent the

  short-term effect of the methane emissions on the climate. According to the record,

  BLM’s scientific analysis was accurate and reliable based on the IPCC’s GWP

  calculations. And because BLM discussed both the one hundred-year and twenty-year

  time horizons in the supporting documents, it appears BLM did consider the short-

  and long-term effects of the GHG emissions. Thus, BLM did not act arbitrarily and

  capriciously by using the one hundred-year time horizons in the EA Addendum.

                                             33
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023         Page: 34

                 ii.   Cumulative impacts

        Citizen Groups and amicus curiae, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New

  York University School of Law (the “Institute”) also argue BLM failed to take a hard

  look at the cumulative impact analysis of the GHG emissions from the APD

  approvals. They argue BLM’s analysis was inadequate because it discussed only the

  quantity of emissions in comparison to the state and national emissions but did not

  discuss the severity of impacts of the GHG emissions more locally.

        A cumulative impact is “the impact on the environment which results from the

  incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably

  foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other

  actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively

  significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. Thus,

        [a] meaningful cumulative impact analysis must identify five things: (1) the
        area in which the effects of the proposed project will be felt; (2) the impacts
        that are expected in that area from the proposed project; (3) other actions—
        past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable—that have had or
        are expected to have impacts in the same area; (4) the impacts or expected
        impacts from these other actions; and (5) the overall impact that can be
        expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.
  San Juan Citizens All. v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038, 1056 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting

  TOMAC, Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852, 864 (D.C.

  Cir. 2006)).

        Citizen Groups contend “BLM’s comparison of project emissions to total

  emissions is, in effect, no analysis at all” because it does not say anything about how

  the emissions will impact the environment. Appellants’ Br. at 33. According to

                                              34
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 35

  Citizen Groups, BLM must consider the impacts of these emissions when added to

  the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future GHG emissions to satisfy NEPA

  requirements. The Institute notes that comparing the quantity of project emissions to

  the quantity of state or national emissions provides little guidance because a small

  percentage of an enormous amount of emissions could still be an enormous amount

  of emissions. Moreover, the Institute expresses concern that an agency could

  “arbitrarily change the denominator to shrink or expand an action’s apparent

  significance.” Institute Br. at 8. For example, if compared to worldwide GHG

  emissions, all projects would be deemed to have a de minimus effect. Citizen Groups

  and the Institute also argue there are better methods for assessing the impacts of

  emissions on the climate such as comparing the emissions to the carbon budget.

        BLM argues it conducted a thorough analysis of the cumulative impacts of the

  GHG emissions because it considered the emissions estimated from the project as

  well as local, national, and global emissions and generally explained the impact of

  GHGs on the global and regional climate. According to BLM, this general analysis

  was sufficient to satisfy its requirement because it explained that “global climate

  models are unable to forecast local or regional effects on resources.” BLM Br. at 33

  (quoting Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1871). Indeed, BLM contends there is no method for

  determining the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions. But we agree with Citizen

  Groups that BLM could have used at least one method for making that determination.

        Courts have disagreed about whether BLM’s method for analyzing the

  cumulative impacts of emissions satisfies this standard. See WildEarth Guardians v.

                                            35
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 36

  Bernhardt, 501 F. Supp. 3d 1192, 1208–09 (D.N.M. 2020) (“[C]ourts both in and out

  of the Tenth Circuit have offered mixed messaging on using climate change-based

  data in decisions.”). Some cases have held that the general description of climate

  change together with the comparison between the estimated emissions of an agency

  action compared to the regional, state, and national emissions is sufficient where the

  science cannot identify the specific impacts that certain GHGs will have on the

  climate. See id. at 1211; Citizens for a Healthy Cmty. v. BLM, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1223,

  1238–41 (D. Colo. 2019); WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 77 (D.

  Colo. 2019); WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

  Other courts, however, recognize the deficiencies in the comparative method BLM

  implemented here.

        Just this year, the Ninth Circuit considered an agency’s decision to expand a

  mine, which the agency estimated would emit 240 million tons of GHGs. 350

  Montana v. Haaland, 50 F.4th 1254, 1273 (9th Cir. 2022). The agency determined

  these emissions “would total approximately 0.44 percent of annual (single year)

  global GHG emissions” and thus concluded the mine expansion’s GHG contribution

  would be minor “relative to other global sources [of GHGs].” Id. at 1266. To reach

  this conclusion, the agency “did not cite any scientific evidence supporting the

  characterization of the project’s emissions as ‘minor’ . . . nor did it identify any

  science-based criteria the agency used in its determination.” Id. It seems the agency

  relied on the sub-one percent value as compared to other global sources to conclude

  the effect was minor, despite the fact the mine expansion was expected to emit more

                                              36
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698       Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 37

  GHGs annually than the largest single point source of GHG emissions in the United

  States. Id. Recognizing emissions greater than the largest single point source of GHG

  emissions did not seem insignificant, the Ninth Circuit commented that “[t]he reader

  is left to guess how or why the GHG emissions from the Mine Expansion represent

  an insignificant contribution to the environmental consequences identified in the

  EA.” Id. As a result, the Ninth Circuit recognized the importance of a science-based

  standard for determining whether the cumulative GHG emissions are significant

  rather than a comparative percentage-based standard that can be downplayed and

  manipulated based on the size of the comparator. See id. at 1269–70 (“By relying on

  an opaque comparison to total global emissions . . . the 2018 EA hid the ball and

  frustrated NEPA’s purpose.”).

          In 350 Montana, the plaintiffs argued the Department of Interior acted

  arbitrarily and capriciously by “fail[ing] to use the Social Cost of Carbon metric to

  quantify the environmental harms that may result from the project’s GHG

  emissions.” Id. at 1270. Rather than direct the Department of Interior to use a specific

  methodology, however, the Ninth Circuit concluded “that prescribing a specific

  metric for the agency to use on remand is not our role.” Id. at 1271. The Ninth Circuit

  concluded the Department of Interior must use “some methodology that satisfies

  NEPA and the APA,” which means at minimum contextualizing the significance of

  the project’s GHG emissions by providing “additional information concerning the

  Mine Expansion’s scale and scope relative to the industry and commodity.” Id. at

  1272.

                                            37
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 38

        Other courts have also concluded an agency must adopt reasonable methods

  for considering the impacts of cumulative GHG emissions if such methods are

  available. See High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F.

  Supp. 3d 1174, 1191 (D. Colo. 2014) (holding the agency acted arbitrarily and

  capriciously by stating there was no way to measure impact of GHG emissions when

  at least one recognized method, the social cost of carbon method, was available);

  California v. Bernhardt, 472 F. Supp. 3d 573, 623 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“It is arbitrary

  for an agency to quantify an action’s benefits while ignoring its costs where tools

  exist to calculate those costs.”); see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l

  Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008).

        Here, BLM analyzed the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative

  GHG emissions expected in the United States and New Mexico. BLM also explained

  that the GHG emissions from New Mexico were expected to increase for numerous

  reasons. Then, BLM listed the past GHG emissions in the Mancos San Juan Basin

  area and the reasonably foreseeable emissions in the area based on the RMP and

  determined the percentage of those emissions that would come from the 370 wells

  analyzed in the EA Addendum. In other portions of the EA Addendum, BLM stated

  that “[t]he incremental contribution to global GHGs from a proposed land

  management action cannot be accurately translated into effects on climate change

  globally or in the area of any site-specific action.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1871. BLM

  noted the emissions from well construction and operations, excluding the

  downstream emissions, would increase the annual national GHG emissions by

                                              38
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 39

  0.00076%, and the annual New Mexico GHG emissions by 7.32%. BLM then

  concluded in a response to a comment, without further explanation, that its approval

  of the APDs “will incrementally contribute to global GHG emissions with de minimis

  impacts to cumulative GHG emissions.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1918.

        As in 350 Montana, it is not clear how BLM concluded the GHG emissions

  from the 370 oil and gas wells would contribute to climate change only in a de

  minimis way based on this analysis. To be sure, BLM adequately supported its

  conclusion that the emissions from these wells would be only a small portion of the

  emissions from all wells anticipated in the RMP, and would add only a small

  percentage to the annual GHG emissions in the nation and the state. However, this

  comparative analysis proves only that there are other, larger sources of GHGs. It does

  not show that this source, which is anticipated to emit more than 31 million metric

  tons of carbon dioxide equivalents,10 will not have a significant impact on the

  environment. Indeed, BLM’s analysis is an example of the concerns Citizen Groups,

  the Institute, and the Ninth Circuit identified regarding this comparative analysis.

        Of course, “NEPA ‘does not require the impossible.’” Utah Physicians for a

  Healthy Env’t, 528 F. Supp. 3d at 1234 (quoting WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368

  F. Supp. 3d at 77). Nor does NEPA require an agency to employ a specific method

  for determining the effects of an agency action. WildEarth Guardians, 501 F. Supp.

        10
          As addressed previously, this estimate is significantly lower than it should
  be because BLM used a single year of operations emissions to calculate the total
  emissions over a twenty-year period. See Part II.B.3.a.i(1).

                                             39
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 40

  3d at 1200. But NEPA does require agencies to consider whether the proposed

  agency action will have a significant impact on the environment and to use accurate

  science to do so. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). Thus, if an accurate method exists to

  determine the effect of the proposed action, BLM must perform that analysis or

  explain why it has not. See WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, 502 F. Supp. 3d 237,

  255 (D.D.C. 2020) (“BLM either had to explain why using a carbon budget analysis

  would not contribute to informed decisionmaking, in response to WildEarth's

  comments, or conduct an ‘accurate scientific analysis’ of the carbon budget.”

  (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b))).

        Here, BLM claimed “[t]he incremental contribution to global GHGs from a

  proposed land management action cannot be accurately translated into effects on

  climate change globally or in the area of any site-specific action.” Joint App. Vol. 9

  at 1871. Instead, BLM described the general projections of environmental impacts

  that may be related to climate change. Citizen Groups, however, propose another way

  BLM could have determined the environmental impact of the emissions—by

  comparing the emissions to the carbon budget.11

        11
            In addition to the arguments that BLM should have compared the emissions
  of the wells to the global carbon budget, the Institute also raises the social cost of
  carbon as another method BLM could have considered to determine the cumulative
  effect of the proposed GHG emissions. Citizen Groups also referenced the social cost
  of carbon method in their comment to the proposed EA Addendum and before the
  district court. Joint App. Vol. 5 at 972–77; Joint App. Vol. 2 at 237–38. The social
  cost of carbon is a method for estimating “the economic damages associated with an
  increase in carbon dioxide emissions and is intended to be used as part of a cost-
  benefit analysis for proposed rules.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1921. According to the

                                            40
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698       Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 41

        We first explain this method of assessing GHG emission impacts. Then, we

  consider Citizen Groups’ argument, ultimately concluding that where BLM received

  a comment requesting it use the carbon budget method, BLM acted arbitrarily and

  capriciously by choosing not to address the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions

  based on there being no method for doing so, without explaining why the carbon

  budget method was deficient for these purposes.

        The carbon budget derives from science suggesting the total amount of GHGs

  that are emitted is the key factor to determine how much global warming occurs. The

  carbon budget is a finite amount of total GHGs that may be emitted worldwide,

  without exceeding acceptable levels of global warming. According to the IPCC, the

  Institute, the quantity of emissions estimated in the EA Addendum would result in a
  social cost of more than $1.6 billion.
         This suggestion was raised only in the amicus curiae brief and was not raised
  by Citizen Groups on appeal. This court has discretion to consider arguments raised
  solely in an amicus brief, but it should do so only “in exceptional circumstances.”
  Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1404 (10th Cir. 1997). For instance, the
  court may exercise its discretion when “(1) a party attempts to raise the issue by
  reference to the amicus brief; or (2) the issue ‘involves a jurisdictional question or
  touches upon an issue of federalism or comity that could be considered sua sponte.’”
  Id. (quoting Swan v. Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1383 (9th Cir. 1993)).
         Citizen Groups did not raise the issue of the social cost of carbon directly or
  by referencing the amicus brief. Moreover, the argument that BLM should have
  considered the social cost of carbon is not a jurisdictional issue that could be
  considered sua sponte. And Citizen Groups have not identified any other exceptional
  circumstance that would justify considering an argument raised solely by amicus
  curiae. Accordingly, we do not address this argument. However, BLM may consider
  the social cost of carbon as a potential method for addressing cumulative impacts of
  GHG emissions on remand.

                                            41
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698      Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 42

  carbon budget remaining in 2011 was below 1,000 GtCO212 for a 66% probability of

  limiting warming to 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. By 2016, the remaining

  budget had been reduced to 850 GtCO2.

        According to Citizen Groups, BLM could have compared the expected

  emissions from the APDs to the remaining carbon budget to determine the

  cumulative impact of the expected emissions. And Citizen Groups argue their

  comments requesting BLM to apply the carbon budget analysis required BLM to

  either apply the analysis or explain why doing so would not contribute to informed

  decisionmaking. Appellants’ Br. at 39 (citing WildEarth Guardians, 502 F. Supp. 3d

  at 255–56). In response to the comments, BLM explained only that “BLM is not

  required to use any specific protocols or methodologies . . . to determine the impact

  of the APDs on climate change.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1911–12.

        It is indeed true that NEPA does not require BLM to use any particular

  methodologies. WildEarth Guardians, 501 F. Supp. 3d at 1209. Importantly,

  however, NEPA does not give BLM the discretion to ignore the impacts to the

  environment when there are methods for analyzing those impacts. So, while it is

  correct that BLM need not use any specific methodology, it is not free to omit the

  analysis of environmental effects entirely when an accepted methodology exists to

  quantify the impact of GHG emissions from the approved APDs. Simply stating what

  percentage the emissions will make up of regional, national, and global emissions

        12
             GtCO2 stands for gigatons of carbon dioxide.

                                            42
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 43

  does not meaningfully inform the public or decisionmakers about the impact of the

  emissions. See Wyoming, 661 F.3d at 1253 (identifying NEPA’s goals as promoting

  “public disclosure and informed decisionmaking”). Indeed, all agency actions

  causing an increase in GHG emissions will appear de minimis when compared to the

  regional, national, and global numbers. Where BLM neither applied the carbon

  budget method nor explained why it did not, BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously

  by failing to consider the impacts of the projected GHGs.

        In summation, BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its analysis of GHG

  emissions by failing to take a hard look at the (1) direct and indirect impacts of GHG

  emissions by using an annual total of emissions to represent emissions for a twenty-

  year period, and (2) cumulative impacts of GHG emissions by relying solely on

  percentage comparisons where at least one more precise method was available.

        b.     Impacts of the approved APDs on water resources

        Citizen Groups next argue BLM failed to take a hard look at the cumulative

  impacts of the APDs to water resources in the area. This is the issue that caused us to

  vacate and remand the five EAs we considered in Dine I, 923 F.3d at 853–54. There,

  we concluded BLM arbitrarily and capriciously violated NEPA because it failed to

  consider the impacts to water from the 3,960 wells predicted in the 2014 reasonably

  foreseeable development scenario (“RFDS”). Id. We reversed and remanded with

  instructions to vacate the five EAs for further consideration under NEPA. Id. at 859.

  In the EA Addendum, BLM considered the cumulative impacts to water resources

                                            43
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698       Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 44

  from 3,200 reasonably foreseeable wells, but Citizen Groups argue this analysis

  continues to be deficient.

        Citizen Groups assert that while BLM quantified the cumulative amount of

  water the wells would use, it did not say anything about the impact the water

  consumption would have on the environment or specific groundwater sources.

  Citizen Groups contend BLM should have included the current or projected

  groundwater conditions and information about how the use of that water would affect

  nearby groundwater. Citizen Groups specifically note that BLM should have

  considered the groundwater levels in the context of the ongoing drought in New

  Mexico and the anticipated decrease in water from climate change. Citizen Groups

  also suggest that BLM should consider how the water use may impact the Navajo

  Nation where 40% of households currently lack water.

        BLM argues it took a hard look with its cumulative impact analysis because it

  considered how much water was likely to be used, including if all the wells employed

  the most water-intensive methods. It then compared that water consumption to the

  total amount of water projected to be used in the region, concluding the water for the

  APDs would represent a small amount of the total water use in the San Juan Basin

  (0.12% to 1.3%). The EA Addendum also incorporated the 2019 BLM New Mexico

  Water Support Document, which analyzed the state of the groundwater wells and

  their existing supply of water. BLM also noted some mitigating factors, including

  that the oil and gas wells could use non-potable groundwater, recycled flowback

                                            44
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 45

  water, and produced water, which is water that cannot be applied to other potential

  uses.

          In response to comments suggesting it should consider the impact to water in

  the context of the drought, BLM stated it considered the available water resources in

  the affected area, so the analysis is “already in the ‘drought context’ . . . if indeed the

  counties are in a state of drought.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1914. This is supported by the

  record, which considered the existing state of the potential groundwater wells. BLM

  did not consider the impact of climate change on the water supply in the EA

  Addendum even though it previously recognized that climate modeling suggests

  climate change will result in “decreases in overall water availability by one quarter to

  one third” in the local region. Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1872. But in the 2019 Water

  Support Document, BLM noted that it is in the process of developing a model to

  simulate water availability based on various scenarios.

          BLM took a sufficiently hard look at the APDs’ expected impact on the water

  resources in the region. While BLM relied primarily on a quantitative-comparative

  analysis as it did with the GHG analysis, the effect of the analysis is different. With

  GHGs, unlike groundwater resources, BLM is not limited to a finite amount of

  emissions. And because of the global nature of climate change, BLM can compare

  GHG emissions on any large scale that shows the emissions from the APDs are small

  without determining the effect those emissions will have on the local environment.

  With water, however, there is a finite amount of water supporting the various water

  uses in a specific region. BLM calculated that the APD activities would account for

                                              45
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 46

  0.12% to 1.3% of the total water usage in the region, depending on the methods used

  for drilling for and extracting oil and gas. This accounts for a small amount of the

  total water resources available in the region, which is a much more useful

  comparison than GHG emissions compared to national or world quantities. See

  WildEarth Guardians, 501 F. Supp. 3d at 1215.

        Moreover, Citizen Groups’ implication that the water usage related to the

  APDs will exacerbate any water insecurity in the region is not supported by the

  record. BLM listed several mitigating factors affecting water usage, including the

  fact that the wells can use water that is not suitable for other purposes. Thus, the

  decision not to consider further the impact on human water availability was not

  arbitrary or capricious. In sum, we hold that BLM did not arbitrarily or capriciously

  conclude that the APD-related water use would not significantly impact the

  environment.

        c.       Impacts of the APDs to air quality and human health

        Citizen Groups next argue BLM violated NEPA because it did not take a hard

  look at the impact of the APD approvals on air quality and health. Relatedly, Citizen

  Groups challenge BLM’s analysis of the environmental impact from hazardous air

  pollutant emissions. We discuss each argument in turn.

        Citizen Groups claim BLM largely failed to consider the information in the

  record showing the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling to air quality and health.

  Citizen Groups first suggest BLM inadequately considered the negative health

  impacts from the increased emissions from the wells. Second, Citizen Groups

                                             46
Appellate Case: 21-2116      Document: 010110806698      Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 47

  contend BLM’s characterizations of the hazardous air pollutant (“HAP”) emissions as

  “temporary” emissions that “would not pose a risk to human health . . . because there

  would not be long-term exposure” was against the evidence in the record. Appellants’

  Br. at 47 (quoting Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1868). According to Citizen Groups, BLM

  must recognize the additive nature of air pollution and the long-term effects of air

  pollutant exposure.

              i.        Air quality and health

        BLM explains that the EA Addendum incorporates the National Ambient Air

  Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) and New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards

  (“NMAAQS”) and associated Air Quality Index (“AQI”) set by the Environment

  Protection Agency (“EPA”) and New Mexico to protect human health. In the EA

  Addendum, BLM noted that the region is in attainment with NAAQS although the

  ozone pollutant levels have come close to exceeding those standards. BLM then

  presumed that all 370 wells would be drilled at the same time, which would be an

  unlikely scenario, and found the maximum increase in annual emissions in the area

  would be 0.46% to 3.16% depending on the pollutant. Even with these increases,

  BLM found the air quality would not exceed the NAAQS or the NMAAQS or

  increase the number of days categorized as “unhealthy” pursuant to the AQI. BLM

  conducted the same analysis regarding the cumulative impacts of all 3,200 wells

  anticipated in the region and concluded the annual emissions would increase by

  0.20% to 1.41% depending on the pollutant. According to BLM, these increases

  would also not exceed the NAAQS or NMAAQS or increase the number of days

                                                 47
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 48

  categorized as “unhealthy.” BLM argues it took a sufficiently hard look by

  comparing the emissions.

        While Citizen Groups take issue with the EA Addendum’s suggestion that the

  increase in ozone pollutant levels would create a “temporary nuisance” for

  individuals living in the area, Appellants’ Br. at 47–51 (citing Joint App. Vol. 9 at

  1868), BLM’s analysis was sufficient to satisfy NEPA. After considering the quantity

  of direct emissions of the 370 wells at issue and the cumulative emissions of the

  other wells anticipated in the area, BLM concluded that “development of the RFD

  scenario,” including by approving the 370 APDs at issue, “would not be expected to

  result in any exceedances of the NAAQS or NMAAQS for any criteria pollutants in

  the analysis area,” including ozone pollutants, or “to increase the number of days”

  classified as unhealthy pursuant to the Air Quality Index. Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1870.

  Accordingly, BLM considered the criteria pollutants, the criteria pollutant at highest

  risk in the area, and the health impacts of that pollutant. BLM then analyzed the

  direct and cumulative impacts of the oil and gas wells anticipated in the area and

  concluded that the levels for criteria pollutants would not exceed the attainment

  levels established by the EPA and New Mexico. Comparison to standards set by

  administrative bodies to determine whether healthy levels of pollutants would be

  exceeded constitutes a hard look at the health impacts of the drilling. See WildEarth

  Guardians, 738 F.3d at 311–12; Tinicum Township v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 685 F.3d

  288, 296 (3d Cir. 2012); San Juan Citizens All., 326 F. Supp. 3d at 1251–52.

                                             48
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 49

        Citizen Groups further challenge the criteria air pollutant analysis because

  there is no evidence in the record about short- and long-term health impacts. Notably,

  in the EA Addendum, BLM conceded there were health impacts of ozone pollutants,

  especially for sensitive groups. Thus, it did not ignore this fact. Instead, BLM

  concluded the elevated ozone levels related to the APDs would not reach unhealthy

  levels as defined by NAAQS and NMAAQS. Thus, BLM took a hard look at the

  criteria pollutant emissions.

               ii.    HAPs environmental impact

        Citizen Groups also challenge BLM’s analysis of the environmental impact

  from HAPs. HAPs are “a class of 187 toxic air pollutants that are known or suspected

  to cause cancer or other serious health effects.” Joint App. Vol. 9 at 1865. There are

  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”), which

  “limit the release of specified HAPs from specific industries.” Id.; Joint App. Vol. 4

  at 704. NESHAPs that apply to oil and gas development include control of “benzene,

  toluene, ethylbenzene, mixed xylenes, and n-hexane from major sources, and benzene

  emissions from triethylene glycol dehydration units as area sources.” Joint App. Vol.

  9 at 1865. The EPA publishes the National Air Toxics Assessment (“NATA”), which

  estimates the exposures and risk of cancer from HAPs in large areas. The most recent

  NATA shows the risk of cancer from HAPs in the San Juan Basin is lower than

  national levels, statewide levels, and levels for nearby areas.

        In the EA Addendum, BLM also recognized that “HAP emissions [from

  APDs] would occur largely in phases—primarily during initial construction, then

                                             49
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 50

  during completion and reclamation efforts . . . [so] impacts would result in short-term

  local area increases of these pollutant emissions.” Id. at 1868. BLM then concluded

  that increase of the levels of HAPs “would be low relative to the distance from the

  source and would not pose a risk to human health (including cancer) because there

  would be no long-term exposure to elevated levels of toxic air pollutants.” Id. BLM

  also states that HAP emissions are estimated to be about 10% of VOCs, and gas

  vented during the well completion process “is flared, which substantially reduces the

  quantity of HAPs released.” Id. at 1869.

        BLM recognized in the EA Addendum that HAPs can cause health effects,

  including cancer. BLM also recognized that the level of HAPs in the area would

  increase during construction and completion activities, but BLM did not determine

  the quantity of HAPs that would be emitted from the drilling of the oil and gas wells.

  Rather, BLM stated the HAP “levels would be low relative to the distance from the

  source and would not pose a risk to human health (including cancer) because there

  would be no long-term exposure to elevated levels of toxic air pollutants.” Id. at

  1868. In the initial EAs, however, BLM determined the “estimated HAP emissions”

  for each APD. See, e.g., Joint App. Vol. 11 at 2508. For example, in one EA, BLM

  estimated the HAP emissions of 0.09 tons/year for the APD at issue. Id.

        Importantly, in the EA Addendum, BLM did not account for the cumulative

  impact to HAP emissions from the wells. Instead, BLM stated the increase in HAP

  emissions would be for a short time during the construction and completion of the

  wells, so it would not cause long-term exposure or health impacts. This may be true

                                             50
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 51

  for one well, but BLM anticipates that more than 3,000 similar wells will be drilled

  in the San Juan Basin over the next several years. If each well emits HAPs for

  approximately ninety days, as estimated, and there are more than 3,000 wells to be

  constructed, it is likely that HAP emissions will occur throughout the multi-year

  construction period. This could cause long-term exposure for individuals who live in

  or visit the San Juan Basin. And long-term exposure, according to BLM, could

  increase the cancer risk for individuals who live or spend time in the San Juan Basin.

  While BLM considered the cumulative impacts of the criteria pollutants from the

  approximately 3,000 wells, it did not include any analysis of the anticipated HAP

  emissions from the construction of those wells over a period of years. Cf. Citizens for

  a Healthy Cmty., 377 F. Supp. 3d at 1242 (holding an EIS took a hard look at the

  health impacts of HAPs when it modeled the maximum amount of HAP emissions

  and calculated how that would increase the risk of cancer). Therefore, BLM acted

  arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to take the necessary hard look at the impacts

  to air and health from HAP emissions.

        Remedy

        We conclude BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to take a hard

  look at (1) the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of GHG

  emissions from the APDs; and (2) the cumulative HAP emissions and the associated

  environmental and health impacts. Therefore, we now consider the appropriate

  remedy. Citizen Groups ask that this court vacate the APDs or issue an injunction

                                            51
Appellate Case: 21-2116      Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023        Page: 52

  halting development on the APDs. BLM and Intervenors argue the court should not

  vacate the APDs or issue an injunction.13

         a.     Vacatur

         Because Citizen Groups’ NEPA claims are brought as APA claims, we look to

  the APA to determine the appropriate remedy. The APA states that a “reviewing

  court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions

  found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

  accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Accordingly, “[v]acatur of agency action is

  a common, and often appropriate form of injunctive relief granted by district courts.”

  Dine I, 923 F.3d at 859.

         But many courts have held that while remand with vacatur is the preferred

  remedy under the APA, it is not the only permissible remedy. See Allied-Signal, 988

  F.2d at 150–51; see also Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of

  Eng’rs, 781 F.3d 1271, 1290 (11th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases that have adopted the

         13
            DJR and SIMCOE filed an unopposed motion to supplement the record on
  appeal with a Supplemental Affidavit of Donald F. Koenig and a Supplemental
  Affidavit of Joseph Zimmerman supporting their positions regarding the proper
  relief. These affiants have prior affidavits in the record on appeal, and the
  supplemental affidavits provide updated information about the APDs and wells and
  the financial loss that vacatur would cause. See Supp. Aff. of Donald F. Koenig;
  Supp. Aff. of Joseph Zimmerman. As a “rare exception to Rule 10(e),” “we have an
  inherent authority to allow supplementation of the record.” Rio Grande Silvery
  Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1110 n.11 (10th Cir. 2010). Here,
  the affidavits provided updated information that has developed since the district
  court’s opinion and would be helpful in this court’s consideration of the appropriate
  remedy. Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981). Accordingly,
  we grant the motion.

                                              52
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 53

  Allied-Signal test). Citizen Groups argue the days of remand without vacatur are over

  after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in DHS v. Regents of the University of

  California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020). In that case, the Supreme Court reviewed the

  procedure DHS employed when making its decision to rescind the Deferred Action

  for Childhood Arrivals program (“DACA”). Id. The Court reiterated that an agency’s

  explanation for its action must precede or be contemporaneous with the action. Id. at

  1907–08. The agency cannot rely on post hoc rationalization. Id. at 1908. Thus, when

  an agency action is supported by insufficient justification, the agency can either

  “offer ‘a fuller explanation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the agency

  action’” or take “new agency action.” Id. at 1907–08 (quoting Pension Benefit

  Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 654 (1990)).

        In Regents, the Court concluded that some of the reasoning proffered for

  rescinding DACA was improper post hoc rationalization because it went beyond the

  reasons given when DHS made its decision. Id. at 1908. Thus, the Court held that

  those post-decision justifications could not be reviewed by the Court unless the

  agency had taken a new action, which it had not. Id. at 1908–09. Because the

  contemporaneous justification for rescinding DACA was arbitrary and capricious, the

  Court concluded “the appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it

  may consider the problem anew.” Id. at 1916.

        Citizen Groups argue that after Regents, the only appropriate remedy for an

  APA violation is vacatur. But this stretches the holding too far. While Regents

  recognizes the importance of following procedures, it does not suggest that vacatur is

                                            53
Appellate Case: 21-2116    Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 54

  the only proper remedy for an APA violation. Indeed, whether to vacate was not the

  question the Court addressed. Furthermore, to the extent the Court’s holding may be

  extrapolated to apply to the remedy for an APA violation, the Court presented an

  option that allows the agency to provide further explanation for its contemporaneous

  reasoning instead of starting over and making a new decision altogether. See id. at

  1907–08; see also IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. United States, 160 Fed. Cl. 57, 85

  (2022) (discussing the holding in Regents and noting that remand without vacatur is

  an appropriate form of relief). Thus, Regents does not preclude remand without

  vacatur as an appropriate remedy under the APA.

        BLM and the Intervenors argue we should consider the practical consequences

  of vacatur, like the D.C. Circuit did in Allied-Signal, 988 F.2d at 150–51, when

  determining whether to remand with or without vacatur. We agree that vacatur is not

  always the appropriate remedy for NEPA violations and now adopt the test set out by

  the D.C. Circuit in Allied-Signal for determining whether vacatur is necessary. See

  Id. Under the Allied-Signal test, courts must consider two factors—(1) “the

  seriousness of the [agency action’s] deficiencies (and thus the extent of doubt

  whether the agency chose correctly),” and (2) “the disruptive consequences of an

  interim change that may itself be changed.” Id. In the context of this case,

  determining “the extent of doubt whether [BLM] chose correctly” refers to whether

  BLM chose correctly to reaffirm the FONSIs, not whether it chose correctly to

  approve the drilling permits. See Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of

  Eng’rs, 985 F.3d 1032, 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Dakota Access,

                                            54
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023      Page: 55

  LLC v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 142 S. Ct. 1187 (2022) (“When an agency

  bypasses a fundamental procedural step, the vacatur inquiry asks not whether the

  ultimate action could be justified, but whether the agency could, with further

  explanation, justify its decision to skip that procedural step.”). And looking to “the

  disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed” requires

  consideration of “both the disruptive consequences to the [oil and gas] industry, as

  well as the potential environmental damage that might continue unabated while

  [BLM] revisits its determinations.” Black Warrior Riverkeeper, 781 F.3d at 1290

  (quotation marks omitted).

        Application of the Allied-Signal factors requires a fact-intensive inquiry that is

  typically left to the discretion of the district court. See Black Warrior Riverkeeper,

  781 F.3d at 1291. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court with

  instructions to apply these factors in the first instance to determine the appropriate

  remedy.

        b.     Injunctive relief

        Citizen Groups also argue that if we choose not to vacate the APD

  approvals, we should enjoin development of the APDs. BLM argues there is

  not sufficient evidence in the record to support an injunction, so this court

  should either deny it or remand to the district court to consider the injunction.

  To show that injunctive relief is warranted, Citizen Groups must demonstrate

        (1) that [they] ha[ve] suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies
        available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
        compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of

                                             55
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698         Date Filed: 02/01/2023        Page: 56

         hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is
         warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a
         permanent injunction.

  Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 156–57 (2010) (quotation

  marks omitted). When assessing the first two factors in the context of environmental

  harm, courts recognize that “[e]nvironmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be

  adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long

  duration, i.e., irreparable.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545

  (1987). Additionally, when assessing the balance of hardships, financial harms

  should be considered but “financial concerns alone generally do not outweigh

  environmental harm,” especially if the financial harm is “self-inflicted.” Valley Cmty.

  Preservation Comm’n v. Mineta, 373 F.3d 1078, 1086 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation

  marks omitted).

         As with vacatur, whether to issue an injunction is within the discretion of the

  district court. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). As such,

  we remand to the district court to apply the test for injunctive relief in the first

  instance if it determines vacatur is not warranted. Although the APDs that have not

  been fully approved are not yet ripe for our review, the deficiencies identified in the

  EAs and EA Addendum necessarily render any new APDs based on those documents

  invalid. We therefore enjoin the approval of any additional APDs until the district

  court can fashion a remedy. Finally, we also instruct the district court that time is of

  the essence.

                                              56
Appellate Case: 21-2116     Document: 010110806698        Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 57

                                  III.   CONCLUSION

        First, we are limited to reviewing the 199 APDs that have been fully approved

  because the remaining 161 are not yet ripe for judicial review. Looking only to the

  199 APD approvals that are ripe for review, we hold that BLM did not unlawfully

  predetermine the outcome of the EA Addendum but that BLM violated NEPA

  because it failed to take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact of

  GHG emissions and the cumulative impact of HAP emissions of the APD approvals.

  We REVERSE and REMAND to the district court to apply the Allied-Signal factors

  and the test for injunctive relief in the first instance. We enjoin any APD approvals

  based on the deficient EAs and EA Addendum until the district court determines the

  appropriate remedy on remand.

                                             57