## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### F e b r u ar y 23, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT F O R E S T G U A R D IA N S , a n o n p ro f it c o r p o r a tio n ; S IN A P U , a n o n p ro fit c o rp o r a t i o n ; C E N T E R F O R N A T I VE E C O SY ST E M S, a nonpr ofi tcorpor at i on; AN I M AL P R O T E C T I O N O F N EW M E X I C O , a nonpr ofi t c or por at i on; A N IM A L P R O T E C T IO N IN S T IT U T E , a n o n p r o f i tc o rp o r a t i o n ; a n d CA RS ON FO R E ST W A T C H , a n o n p rof itco rpor at i on, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 05- 2181 H A R V F O R S G R E N , R eg ion al F o rester, U. S. Fo r e s tSe r v i c e Re g i o n 3 ; UN I TED ST A T E S F O R E ST SE R V I C E , a Feder al A g en cy; A N N M
. V E N E M A N , S ec retary of the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof A g r i c u l t u r e ; UNI T E D STA TES D E P A R T M E N T O F A G R IC U L T U R E , a F e d e r a l De p a r t me n t ; GAL E NOR T ON, Secr et aryof U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof I n t e r i o r ; UNI TED STATES D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E I N T E R IO R , a F e d e r a l Dep a r t m ent ; STEVEN W IL L IA M S , D i rect or, U nit ed S t at es Fis h a n d W i l d l i f

e Se r v i ce; UN I TED STATES F IS H A N D W IL D L IF E S E R V IC E , a F eder al A gency ; H
. D A L E H A L L , D ir ec tor, U ni t ed St at es Fi s h and W i l dl i fe Servi ce, R egi on 2, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.2 APP EAL FROM THE UN I TED S TATES DI S TRI CT CO URT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO

( C I V - 04 - 01 43 R B/ D JS) M atthew K
. B i s hop, W es t ern E nvi r onm ent al L aw C ent er , T aos , N ew M exi co, for P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . M a r k R. Ha a g , At t o r n e y( Ke l l yA. J o h n s o n , As s i s t a n tAt t o rn e yGe n e r a l ; J a me s C. K i l bourne, A t t orney ) E nvi r onm ent al & N atur al R es our ces D i vi s i on, D epart m entof Just i ce, W ashi ng t on , D
. C
. , for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. B efor e M UR P HY , BA LD OCK , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. BA LD OCK , C i r cui tJ udge.
T he U ni t ed S t at es Fi s h and W i l dl i fe Ser vi ce ( FW S) has l i s t ed a “ di s t i nctpopul at i on seg m en t” (D P S ) of

C an ad a L yn x as “ threa tene d ” u n d er the E n d an g ere d S p ec ies A ct (E S A ), 16 U
. S. C. §§ 15 31
- 44
. Se e D e t e r mi na t i on of Thr e a t e ne d St a tus for t he C on t i gu ou s U
. S. D i s t i nctPopul at i on Segm entof the C anada L ynx and R el at ed R ul e, 65 Fed. R eg. 16052 ( M ar ch 24, 2000) ( Fi nal R ul e) , cl ar i fi ed byN ot i ce of R emanded D et erm i nat i on of St atus for the C ont i guous U
. S. D i s t i nctPopul at i on Segm entof the C anada L ynx, 68 Fed. R eg. 40076 (Ju ly3 , 2 0 0 3 ) (R u le C lar if ica tio n ). F o re st G u a rd ian s a n d o th e r e n v iro n m e n tal n o n p ro f it gr oups ( col l ect i vel yFor es tG uar di ans ) s eek t o compel the U n it ed St at es For es tSer vi ce pur s uantt o § 7( a) ( 2) of the ES A t o cons ul t w i th FW S on the ques t i on of w hetherthe Land
a n d R e so u rc e M a n a g e m e n t P lan s (L R M P s) f o r th e C a rso n a n d S a n ta F e N a tio n a l F o re stsSub j e c tt o e xc e pt i on s no ta pp l i c a bl e he r e , the c i t i z e n- s ui tpr ov i s i on of the ESA 1 pr ovi des a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on “t o enj oi n anyper s on, i ncl udi ng the U ni t ed St at es and a n yo th e r g o v e rn m e n tal in stru m e n talityo r a g e n c y(to th e e x ten t p e rm itt e d b yth e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t to th e C o n stitu tio n ), w h o is a lleg e d to b e in v io latio n o f a n yp ro v isio n o f

th is c h a p te r o r r e g u la tio n is s u e d u n d e r t h e a u th o ri ty th e re o f[ .]” 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 0 (g )( 1 )( A ). For es tG uar di ans ’ pr ay erthatthe For es tSer vi ce be di r ect ed t o cons ul tw i th FW S pur s uant t o § 7( a) ( 2) cons t i tut es a r eques tform andat oryi nj unct i ve r el i ef. 3 m a yjeo p a rd ize th e c o n tin u e d e x iste n c e o f th e lyn x . S e e 1 6 U .S .C
. § § 1 5 3 6 (a )(2 ). W e h o ld 1 F o re st G u a rd ian s’ a lleg a tio n o f “ a g e n c ya c tio n ” in th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in su f f icie n t to
s u s t a i n i t s c l a i m a g a i n s tth e F o r e s tS e r v i c e u n d e r§ 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f th e E S A. I. C ongr es s enac t ed the ES A t o pr ovi de fo r th e “c ons ervat i on, pr ot ect i on and pr opagat i on” of w i l dl i fe fac i ng ext i nct i on. S. R ep. N o. 93- 307, at 1, r epr i nt ed i n 1 973 U .S .C .C .A .N . 2 9 8 9 ; se e a lso 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 1 (b ). T h e E S A a u th o riz e s F W S to d e sig n a te a D P S o f a sp ec ies as “e n d an g ere d ” o r “ threa tene d
. ” S ee 1 6 U
. S
. C
. § § 1 5 3 2 (16 ), 1 5 3 3 (a)(1). W hen FW S des i gnat es a D PS of a spe ci es as endange r ed orthr eat ened, s i s t eragenc i es
as s um e s peci al obl i gat i ons t o pr ot ectthats peci es . See W y o m ing Far m B ur eau Fed’ n v. B abb i t t , 19 9 F
. 3d 12 24 , 12 31 (10t h C i r. 20 00 ). T he p ri ncipal ob l i gati on at i ssue in this case i s encompas s ed w i thi n § 7( a) ( 2) of the ES A
. T hats ect i on requi r es an ac t i ng agenc y (a lleg e d lyth e F o re st S e rv ice ) to c o n su lt w ith F W S to e n su re th e f o rm e r’s “ a c tio n ” (a lleg e d ly the L R M Ps) i s unl i kel yt o j eopar di ze the cont i nued exi s t ence of an e ndanger ed orthr eat ened speci es:
E ach fede r al agenc ys hal l , i n cons ul t at i on w i th and w i th the as s i s t ance of theFora det ai l ed di s cus s i on of the ES A cons ul t at i on pr oces s s ee 50 C. F. R
. Pt
. 402, 2 Subpt
. B
. See al s o St anfor d E nvi r onm ent al L aw Soci ety , T he Endanger ed Speci es A ct 8 3 -98 (20 0 1 ). O n appea l , FG al s o pr es s es cl ai m s agai ns tFW S ar i s i ng underthe A dm i ni s tr at i ve 3 Pr ocedur e A ct( A PA ) , 5 U
. S. C
. §§ 701- 706. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed thes e cl ai m s on the pl eadi ngs pur s uantt o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( c)
. B eca us e w e conc l ude the For es tSer vi ce i n thi s cas e has no dutyt o cons ul tw i th FW S underthe ES A , For es tG uar di ans ’ cont ent i on that FW S ’s decis i on no tt o requir e con sul t at i on w i th the Fo res tS ervi ce con st i tutes a vi ol at i on of the A PA nece s s ar i l yfai l s . See N or t on v. Sout hern U t ah W i l dernes s A l l i ance , 5 4 2 U .S . 5 5 , 7 2 (2 0 0 4 ) (“ B e f o re a d d re ss in g w h e th e r a N E P A -re q u ire d d u tyis a c tio n a b le u n d er the A P A , w e m u st de cide w h ethe r N E P A cre ates a n o b li g ati o n in the firstp lace
. ”). 4 [ F W S ] , i n s u r e th a t a n y act i on author i zed, funded, orcarr i ed outbys uch agenc y( her ei naft eri n thi s s ect ion ref err ed t o as an “a gencyact i on”) i s not l i kel yt o j eopar di ze the co n ti n u ed exi s t ence of anyendange r ed s peci es or th re a te n e d s p e c ie s . . . . 16 U
. S. C
. § 1536( a) ( 2) ( emphasi s added)
. T he appl i cabl e FW S r egul at i on, i n turn, defi nes 2 “act i on ” as “ a ll a c tiviti es or prog ram s o f a n yk in d a u th o riz e d , fu n d e d , o r c a rrie d o u t, i n
w hol e ori n part , byFeder al agenc i es i n the U ni t ed St at es . . . . ” 50 C
. F. R
. § 402. 02 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s m i s s e d F o r e s tG u a r d i a n s ’ a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n ti n i t s e n t i r e ty. R e lev ant t o o ur t ask, t he co urtdis m i ssed Fo res tG uardi ans’ ES A cl ai m againstthe F orest Ser vi ce pur s uant t o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6)
. A ccor di ng t o the court , the D PS l i s t i ng fort he 3 C anada L ynx i s l i m i t ed t o a fourt een St at e ar ea thatdo es n o t en compass the C ar s on and Sant a F e N at i onal For es t s , both of w hi ch ar e l ocat ed ent i r el yw i thi n the St at e of N ew M ex ico. B ec au se F W S h as no t li sted the lyn x as th rea tene d in N ew M ex ico, th e d istri ct co u rtF W S ’s F in a l R u le s tate s th e “ p o p u latio n se g m e n t” f o r C a n a d a lyn x “ o c c u rs in 4 for es t ed port i ons of the St at es of C ol or ado, I daho, M ai ne, M i chi gan, M i nnes ot a, M ont ana, N ew H ampshi r e, N ew Y or k, O r egon, U t ah, V erm ont , W as hi ngt on, and W i s cons i n. ” Fi nal R ul e, 65 Fed. R eg. at16052. T he r egul at i on l i s t i ng endange r ed or threa tene d w il d li fe fo u n d at 50 C
. F
. R
. § 1 7
. 1 1 (h) a d d s W y o m ing to the li st of are as w h ere C anada l ynx ar e thr eat ened. R ej ect i ng a l at ercomm ents ugges t i ng the r ange of the l ynx sh o u ld in c lu d e th e n o rth e rn m o u n tain ra n g e s in N e w M e x ico , the F W S sta ted in its R u le C lar if ica tio n : “W e d o n o t co n sid e r lyn x re c e n tlyre lea se d in C o lo ra d o th a t stra y e d in to N ew M exi co as s uffi ci entr eas on t o i ncl ude N ew M exi co w i thi n the r ange of nat i ve l ynx b e c a u se th e re is n o e v id e n c e h a b itat in N e w M e x ico h isto ric a llysu p p o rte d lyn x .” R u le C l ar i fi cat i on, 68 Fed. R eg. at40083. 5 c on c l ud e d the ESA do e s no tr e qu i r e the For e s tSe r vi c e t o c on s ul tw i th FW S. 4 O ur j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f F o r e s t Gu a r d i a ns ’ ESA claim arises u n d er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. O u r rev iew is de n o v o . S ee M o y a v . S ch o ll en b arg er, 465 F. 3d 4 4 4, 454 ( 10th C i r . 2006)
. W e ac ceptthe fa ctual al l egat i ons of the amended
com pl ai ntas true butow e no s uch al l egi ance t o i t s l egal concl us i ons . See J or dan v. A l t ernat i ve R es. C orp. , 45 8 F
. 3d 33 2, 33 8 (4t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). B ecause w e con cl ud e F orest G uardi ans has n ot adequ at el yal l eged the ag e n c yact i on necessaryt o tr i gg er the F orest Ser vi ce’ s dutyt o consu ltw i th FW S under§ 7( a) ( 2) of the ES A , w e nee d notr eac h t he qu est i on of w hetherthe D P S l i st i ng of C anad a L ynx w ou l d o therw ise requir e t he F orest Ser vi ce t o cons ul tw i th FW S on t he C ar s on and Sant a Fe N at i onal For es tPl ans . See C h am p ag n e M etals v. K en -M ac M etals, Inc
. , 4 5 8 F
. 3 d 1 0 7 3 , 1 0 8 8 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) (co u rt of appeal s m ay aff

i r m on anygr ound s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, pr ovi ded the part i es have ha d
an o p p o rtu n ityto ad d ress su ch g rou n d ).6 II. W e b e g in w it h th e re lev a n t alle g a tio n o f F o re st G u a rd ian s’ a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. Pa r a gr a ph 11 s t a t e s : “ I mpl e ment a t i on of the Car s on a nd Sa nt a Fe N a t i on a l For e s tLR M Ps are ‘ agen cyact i on s’ that ‘ m ayaffect’ l i st ed lynx and , as such, the F ederal -D efen dan t s m ust under go form al § 7 cons ul t at i on t o i ns ur e that s uch act i ons ar e not j eopar di zi ng the cont i nued exi s t ence of l ynx. ” A ccor di ng t o the F or es t Ser vi ce, “the C ar s on and Sant a Fe For es tPl ans do not cons t i tut e ongoi ng ‘ agenc y act i on’ forpurpos es of § 7( a) ( 2)
. ” To supporti t s pos i t i on, the For es tSer vi ce r el i es on the S upr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n N or t on v. Sout hern U t ah W ild e rn e ss A lli a n c e , 5 4 2 U .S . 5 5 (2 0 0 4 ). In N o rto n , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t w h ile
a p p r o v a l o f

a l a n d u s e p l a n p r o mul gat ed b yth e Bur e a u o f La n d M a n a g e me n t( BLM )
co n sti tuted “m ajor F ed era l acti o n ” u n d er the N ati o n al E n v ir o n m en tal P o li cyA ct (N E P A ),
s uch ac t i on w as compl et e once B L M appr oved the pl an. I d. at73. T he C our tr ej ect ed the
no t i on that the p l an it sel f con st i tuted “on go i ng ‘m aj or Fed eral act i on . ’” Id
. F orest G uar di ans poi nt s out , how ever , thatthi s cas e ar i s es underthe ES A , notN E PA , and that “ac t i on” under§ 7 of the ES A i s “broadl ydefi ned. ” To supporti t s al l egat i on of age ncy
ac ti o n , F o rest G u ard ians reli es p ri n cipa ll y o n the N inth C ir cu it ’s de cisi o n in P ac ifi c R ivers Counc i l v. Thomas , 30 F. 3d 10 50 ( 9th Ci r . 19 94 )
. I n Pa c i fi c Ri ve r s , the c ou r t he l d “ LR M Ps
cons t i tut e cont i nui ng agenc y act i on r equi r i ng cons ul t at i on under § 7( a) ( 2) of the ES A
. ” I d. at 105 1
- 5 2
. Be f

o r e tu r n i n g t o a n a n a l y s i s o f th e s e c o mpe t i n g a r g u me n t s , a b r i e f o v e r v i ew of L R M Ps i s appr opr i at e t o add focus t o the narr ow i s s ue bef or e us , thati s , the s uffi ci ency of F or es t G uar di ans ’ al l egat i on that “[i ] m pl ement at i on of the C ar s on and Sant a Fe N at i onalTh e F o r e s tS e r v i c e Ha n d b o o k 1 1
. 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( a v a i l a b l e a th t tp : //www . f s . f e d
. u s / i m/ 5 dir ect i ves/ fsh/ 19 09
. 12 / 19 09
. 12 _1 0. do c) di scusses the “p roposed and po ssi ble act i on s” c on t a i ne d wi thi n a LR M P: T he pr opos ed and pos s i bl e ac t i ons l i s t ed i n the l and managementpl an shou l d incl ud e t ho se act i on s ant i ci pated t o p rovi de the arr ayof m ult i ple- use oppor tuni t i es orr es our ce managementpr ogr ams thata for es t , gr as s l and, pr ai r i e, orot hercompar abl e admi ni s tr at i ve uni texpec t s t o pr ovi de. T he p ro p o s e d a n d p o s s ib le a c tio n s m a yb e d is p la y e d in a n a p p e n d ix
. . . . Pr opos ed and pos s i bl e ac t i ons m aybe pr es ent ed i n a br i ef s um m aryof the types of pr oj ect s thatm ayoccuri n the pl an dec ade t o m ai nt ai n orm ove t ow ar d t he des i r ed condi t i ons . . . . Pr opos ed and pos s i bl e ac t i ons s houl d not s pecul at e aboutthe s peci fi c amount , quant i t i es , fr equenc y , orm agni tude of act i ons dur i ng the pl an dec ade. (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). 7 F o rest L R M P s are ‘ag en cyac ti o n s’” w ith in the m ea n ing o f § 7 (a)(2). A. T he N at i onal For es tM anage m entA ct( N FM A ) , 16 U
. S. C
. §§ 1600- 1614, di r ect s t he For es tSer vi ce t o devel op a LR M P foreac h uni tof the N at i onal For es tS y stem . S ee i d. § 1604( a)
. R egul at i ons cont ai ned i n Subpar tA of 36 C
. F. R
. Pt
. 219 s etfor th the pr oces s for devel opi ng, amendi ng and re vi s i ng L R M Ps. L R M Ps a r e “e m bodi ed i n appr opr i at e w r i t t en
m at er i al [.]” 16 U
. S. C
. § 1604( f) ( 2)
. L R M Ps r efl ect , among ot herthi ngs “pr opos ed
an d pos s i bl e ac t i ons [. ] ” I d. C ons i s t entw i th the N FM A , the appl i cabl e For es tSer vi ce 5
r e g u l a t i o n d e f

i n e s a “ p l a n ” a s “ [ a ] d o c u m e n to rs e to f d o c u m e n t s th a ti n t e g r a t e s a n d d i s p l a ys i n f o r ma t i o n r e l e v a n tt o ma n a g e me n to f a u n i to f

th e Na t i o n a l F or e s t S y s t e m. ” 3 6 C. F
. R. § 2 19
. 16
. L R M P s developed pu rs uan tt o the N F M A and S ub partA of the regul at i on s–T he r egul at i ons i dent i fyfi ve “c om ponent s ” of a L R M P: ( 1) “D es i r ed 6 condi t i ons , ” ( 2) “O bj ect i ves , ” ( 3) “G ui del i nes , ” ( 4) “Sui t abi l i tyof ar eas , ” and ( 5) “Speci fi c ar eas . ” 36 C
. F. R
. § 219. 7( a) ( 2)
. Subse ct i ons ( i ) and ( i i ) des cr i be des i r ed con dit i on s and o bject i ves as “aspi rat i on s. ” Id. § 2 19
. 7(a) (2) (i ), (i i ). D esi red con dit i on s, obj ect i ves , and gui del i nes “ar e notcomm i t m ent s orfi nal deci s i ons appr ovi ng pr oj ect s and act i vit i es. ” Id. § 2 19
. 7(a) (2) (i ), (i i ), (i i i ). S ub sect i on (i v) and (v) r espect i velyadd res s s ui t abl e us es and s peci al ar ea de s i gnat i ons w i thi n a for es tuni tw i th s i m i l arverbi age. I d. § 2 1 9
. 7 (a)(2)(iv), (v).
8 gener al l ycont ai n des i r ed condi t i ons , obj ect i ves , and gui dance forpr oj ectand act i vi tydeci s i onm aki ng i n the pl an ar ea. Pl ans do notgr ant , w i thhol d, or m o d if ya n yc o n tra c t, p e rm it o r oth e r l e g a l in stru m e n t, su b jec t an y o n e to c iv il orcr i m i nal l i abi l i ty , or cr eat e any l egal r i ght s . Pl ans typi cal l y do notappr ove orexec ut e pr oj ect s and ac t i vi t i es . D eci sion s w i th eff ect s thatcan be m ea n in g f

u llyev alua ted typ icall yare m ad e w h en p rojec ts an d ac ti v it ies are appr oved. I d. § 219. 3( b) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I n s hor t , L R M Ps a r e “a fr amew or k form aki ng l at er pr oj ectd e c i s i o n s r a th e rth a n . . . a c o l l e c t i o n o f p r o j e c td e c i s i o n s . ” Re v i e w an d Comme nt and A ppeal Pr ocedur es for N at i onal For es tPl anni ng and Pr oj ectD eci s i ons ; R eques t i ng R e v iew o f

N a tio n a l F o re st P lan s a n d P rojec t D e c isio n s, 5 8 F e d . R e g . 1 9 3 6 9 , 1 9 3 7 0 (A p ril 1 4 , 1 9 9 3 ) (Plan R ev iew ). 6 A s w e hav e oft explai ned , m anag em e n t o f L R M P s o ccurs attw o level s. T he fir st lev e l is “ p ro g ra m m a tic:” A tthe pr ogr amm at i c l evel , the For es tSer vi ce cr eat es gener al , for es tw i de planni ng go al s m em ori al i zed in a forestplan. B ecause the Fo res tS ervi ce m ust acc ountfora var i etyof di ffe r enti nt er es t s , eac h for es tpl an envis i ons the fo res t w i l l be us ed form ul t i pl e purpos es , i ncl ud ing “out doorr ecr eat i on, r ange, ti m b er, w atersh ed , w il d li fe an d fish , an d w il d ern ess.” 1 6 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 4 (e)(1). A tthe s ame t i m e, the for es tpl an provi des for“di ver s i tyof pl antand ani m al c o m m u n itie s b a s e d o n th e s u ita b ility a n d c a p a b ility o f th e s p e c if ic la n d a re a .” Id. § 1 6 0 4 (g)(3 )(B ).9

U t ah E nvt l
. C ong. v. B os w or th, 443 F. 3d 732, 737 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( emphasi s added)
. T he
s econd l evel i s “project: ” W e have r epea t edl ys t at ed that“[t ] he For es tSer vi ce i s r equi r ed t o im plem ent the fo res tplan byapp rovi ng or d i sapprov i ng speci fi c proj ect s. P roj ect s m ust b e c o n sis ten t w ith th e g o v e rn in g f o re st p lan a n d a re su b

jec t to th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts of N E PA
. ” Lam b v . T h o m ps on, 265 F. 3d 1038, 1042 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ; acc or d Si l vert on S n o w m o b il e C lub v . U n it ed S tat es F o rest S erv . , 4 3 3 F .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 8 5 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ); C ol or ado Envt l
. C oal i t i on v. D om beck, 185 F. 3d 11 6 2 , 1168 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ; s ee a l s o 36 C
. F
. R
. § 2 1 5
. 1 (reco g n izi n g the im p lem en tat ion o f L R M P s thro u g h p rojec ts an d ac ti v it ies). “[ I]m p lem en tat ion o f th e L R M P o cc u rs . . . w h en ind ividu al si te-spe cific p rojec ts are pr opos ed and as s es s ed[, ] ” and not befor e. I daho C ons ervat i on L eague v M um m a, 956 F. 2d 15 08 , 15 12 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). T o asses s a propo sed proj ect or act i on , the F orestS ervi ce m ust
c o n d u c t an a n a ly sis a n d e v a lu a tio n o f su c h p rojec t o r a c tio n to a ss u re c o m p lian c e n o t o n ly
w ith the L R M P b u t al so w ith ap p li ca b le l aw s an d reg u lat ion s. S ee 3 6 C
. F
. R
. § 2 1 9
. 8 (b), ( e); For es tSer vi ce M anual 1926. 41 ( 2006) ( avai l abl e atht tp: //w w w . fs
. fed. us / im /di r ect i ves / fs m / 1900/ 1920. doc) ; s ee ge ner al l y36 C
. F. R
. Pt
. 215 ( addr es s i ng no ti ce , comm ent , and
a p p e a ls p ro c e d u re s f

o r F o re st S e rv ice p rojec ts a n d a c tiv iti e s). O n ly th e n m a y a n irre v e rsib le
comm i t m entof for es tr es our ces occur . See Pl an R evi ew , 58 Fed. R eg. at19370.I nt er es t i ngl y , the N E PA r egul at i on addr es s i ng the meani ng of “maj orfede r al 7 act i on, ” the phr as e di s cus s ed i n N or t on, s t at es : “A ct i ons i ncl ude new and cont i nui ng act i vi t i es , i ncl udi ng pr oj ect s and pr ogr ams ent i r el yorpart l yfi nance d, as s i s t ed, c o n d u c ted , reg u late d o r a p p ro v e d b yf e d e ra l ag e n c ies ; new orr evis ed agen cyrul es, re g u la tio n s , plans , p o l i c i e s , o rp r o c e d u r e s ; a n d l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l s . . . . 4 0 C. F
. R. 1 5 0 8 .1 8 (a ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). S u b se c tio n (b ) o f th e re g u latio n in d ica tes th a t– F ederal act i on s t end t o fall w i thin one o f t he fo l l ow i ng cat ego ri es: ( 1) A dopt i on of off

i ci al pol i cy , s uch as
. . . form al document s es t abl i s hi ng an age ncy ’ s pol i ci es w hi ch w i l l r es ul ti n ors ubs t ant i al l yal t eragenc y program s. (2) A dopt i on of

f or m alplans , s uch as offi ci al document s pr epar ed or appr oved byfede r al agenc i es w hi ch gui de orpr es cr i be al t ernat i ve us es of f e d e ra l r e s o u rc e s , upon w hi ch f ut ur e agenc

y act i ons w i l lbe bas ed
. (3 ) A d o p tio n o f

p ro g ra m s, su c h a s a g ro u p o f c o n c e rte d a c tio n s to im p le m e n t a s p e c if

ic p o lic yo r p la n . . . . ( 4) A ppr oval of s peci fi c pr oj ect s , s uch as cons truct i on orm anage m ent a c tiv itie s lo c a te d in a d e f in e d g e o g ra p h ic a re a . . . . Id. § 1 5 0 8
. 1 8 (b) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 10 B. M uch l i ke the pr om ul gat i on of a r egul at i on, w e have l i t t l e doubtaft erN or t on thatt he actof appr ovi ng, amendi ng, or r evi s i ng a L R M P cons t i tut es “ac t i on” under§ 7( a) ( 2) of the E S A . S e e 5 0 C .F .R . 4 0 2 .0 2 (listin g th e “ p ro m u lg a tio n ” o f r e g u la tio n s a s a n e x a m p le of “a cti o n ” under§ 7)
. N othi ng i n the for egoi ng overvi ew , how ever , s ugges t s t hat L R M Ps, once appr oved, amended, orr evi s ed, cons t i tut e ongoi ng, s el f-impl ement i ng
a c t i o n u n d e r § 7 ( a ) ( 2 )
. Co mp a r e No r t o n , 5 4 2 U. S
. a t7 2
- 7 3
. T o th e c o n tr a ry , th e NF M A, 7 FW S r egul at i ons , and Tent h C i r cui tcas e l aw s ugges tL R M Ps a r e i m pl ement ed thr ough t he appr oval of pr oposed proj ect s and ac t i vi t i es thatar e cons i s t entw i th the pl an’ s di r ect i on.T h e C a rso n N a tio n a l F o re st e n c o m p a ss e s n e a rly1 .4 m ill io n a c re s o f lan d in 8 n o rth e rn N e w M e x ico . T h e f o re st, w h ich a b u ts th e S tate o f C o lo ra d o , is d iv id e d in to six R angerD i s tr i ct s . See gene r al l yht tp: //w w w . fs
. fed. us /r 3/ car s on/ i ndex. s ht m l ( C ar s on N at i onal For es tH om epage )
. T he Sant a Fe N at i onal For es tencompas s es 1. 6 m i l l i on acr es of l and i n nor th- centr al N ew M exi co and i s di vi ded i nt o fi ve R angerD i s tr i ct s . See g e n e ra lly h ttp ://w w w .f

s .f e d .u s /r 3 /s f

e /in d e x .h tm l ( S a n ta F e N a tio n a l F o re s t H o m e p a g e ). T he C ar s on N at i onal For es tPl an, fi r s tappr oved i n 1986, i s avai l abl e onl i ne at ht tp: //w w w . fs
. fed. us /r 3/ car s on/pl ans / for es t_pl an/ for es t_pl an. s ht m l
. T he pl an di vi des t he for es ti nt o 21 “managementar eas ” and a ddr es s es the fol l ow i ng conce rns : ai r , cul tur al r es our ces , fac i l i t i es and corr i dor s , fi r e, l ands , l aw enfor cement , m i ner al s , peopl e, r ange, r ecr eat i on, s peci al us es , s us t ai nabl e for es t s , t i m ber , tr avel , vi s ual , w at er s hed, and w i l dl i fe and fi s h. T he Sant a Fe N at i onal For es tPl an, appr oved i n 1987, i s al s o avai l abl e onl i ne at ht tp: //w w w . fs
. fed. us /r 3/ s fe/pr oj ect s /pl ans R eport s / i ndex. ht m l
. T hatpl an di vi des the (c o n tin u e d ...) 11 O nce the LR M P i s i n pl ace , “age ncyact i on” t akes pl ace atthe pr oj ectl evel
. See N at i onal For es tSy s t em L and and Resour ce M anage m entPl anni ng, 60 Fed. R eg. 188 8 6, 18901 (P ro p o se d R u le, A p ril 1 3 , 1 9 9 5 ). R a th e r th a n a c tio n s th e m se lv e s, L R M P s a p p e a r m o re a k in to “ ro a d m a p s ” o n w h ic h t h e F o r e s t S e rv ic e re lie s to c h a rt v a ri o u s c o u rs e s o f a c tio n . A L R M P i s , i n the trues ts ens e, a documentthatcr eat es a vis i on byi nt egr at i ng and di s pl ay i ng i nform at i on r el evantt o the managementof a na t i onal fore st. S ee 36 C
. F. R
. § 219. 16; s ee also B o sw o rth , 4 4 3 F
. 3 d at 73 7 (de scribing L R M P s as e n v isi o n ing fo rest use s); co m p are N o rt o n , 5 4 2 U
. S
. at 59 (de scribing land u se p lans as g u id in g a n d c o n tr o ll ing fu ture
m an ag em en t acti o n s). N onethel es s , For es tG uar di ans i ns i s t s the defi ni t i on of “act i on” as use d i n § 7( a) ( 2) of the ES A i s br oad enough t o encompas s the si zabl e ent i r ety of the r es pect i ve LR M Ps for the C ar s on and Sant a Fe N at i onal For es t s , eac h of w hi ch s et s pol i cyfora for es texce edi ng 1. 3 mi l l i on a c r e s i n l a nd mas s . Tha t de fi ni t i on of “ a c t i on , ” c ompl e t e w i th ex am ples , 8(
. . . cont i nued) 8 for es ti nt o 12 “managementar eas , ” w hi l e addr es s i ng the fol l ow i ng conce rns : r ecr eat i on , o f f
- r o a d v e h i c l e u s e , v i s u a l q u a l i ty, c u l tu r a l r e s o u r c e s , w i l d l i f e , w i l d l i f e h a b i t a td i v e r s i ty, r ange, t i m ber , fi r ew ood, w at er s hed, tr ans por t at i on, and r es ear ch. C om par e N or t on, 542 U. S. a t7 0
- 7 1 ( d i s c u s s i n g th e c o mpl e x i tyo f a l a n d u s e p l a n f

o r1
. 5 mi l l i o n a c r e s o f

BLM
ad m inist ere d land ). T h e F o rest S erv ice m u st r ev ise a L R M P at l ea st on ce ev ery f if te e n y e a rs , b u t m a ya m e n d it, in c o m p lia n c e w ith s e t p ro c e d u re s , a t a n ytim e . 1 6 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 4 ( f

) ( 4 ) , ( f ) ( 5 )
. B o th p l a n s h a v e b e e n a m e n d e d p e r i o d i c a l l y.

12 enco m passes–
a ll ac tiv iti e s o r p r o g ra m s o f a n yk in d a u th o riz e d , fu n d e d , o r c a rrie d o u t, i n w hol e o ri n p a r t , b yFe d e r a l a g e n c i e s i n th e Uni t e d St a t e s . . . . Ex a mpl es i ncl ude, butar e notl i m i t ed t o: (a ) a c tio n s in ten d e d to c o n se rv e listed sp e c ies o r th e ir h a b itat; (b) the p rom ulgat i on of regu l at i on s; ( c ) th e g r a n t i n g o f

l i c e n s e s , c o n tr a c t s , l e a s e s , e a s e m e n t s , r i g h t s - o f
- w a y, perm i t s , orgr ant s - i n- ai d; or (d) a cti o n s d ir ec tl yo r i n d ir ec tl yca u sing m o d ifi ca ti o n s to the land , w ater, o r air. 50 C
. F. R
. § 402. 02; s ee al s o 40 C
. F. R
. § 1508. 18( b) ( 3) ( des cr i bi ng a “pr ogr am” as “a gr oup
o f c o n ce rt ed ac ti o n s to im p lem en t a sp ec ifi c p o li cyo r plan ”). W e do no tdo ub ta LR M P mightauthor i ze a n act i vi tyorpr ogr am, and thats uch
a u th o r i z a t i o n c o u l d c o n s t i tu t e “ a c t i o n ” wi th i n th e me a n i n g o f § 7 ( a ) ( 2 )
. Si mi l a r l y , i f t he L R M P d e m a n d e d th e F o re st S e rv ice f u n d o r c a rry o u t a n a c tiv ity o r p ro g ra m , this to o c o u ld
c on st i tute “act i on ” un der § 7(a) (2)
. S uch “act i on , ” i n turn, cou l d gi ve r i se t o a d u tyto
c o n su lt on thatpar t i cularact i on u n d er § 7 (a)(2) o f th e E S A
. S ee 1 6 U
. S
. C
. § 1 5 3 6 (a)(2). L R M P s, h o w ev er, “t

ypi cal l y do not appr ove or e xecut e pr oj ect s and ac t i vi t i es , ” and do not
a u th o riz e th e irre v e rsib le c o m m itm e n t o f f o re st re so u rc e s. 3 6 C .F .R . § 2 1 9 .3 (b ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ); s ee a l s o i d. § 215. 12 ( r ecogni zi ng a LR M P m ayi ncl ude a “ pr oj ectdeci s i on ”);Ourr e a d i n g o f Nor t o n r e v e a l s th a ta “ l a n d u s e p l a n ” p r o mul g a t e d b yth e BLM 9 does notdi ffe rs i gni fi cant l yfr om a LR M P pr om ul gat ed bythe For es tSer vi ce. See N or t on, 542 U
. S. at67- 72. B oth t ypes of pl ans embra ce a n “i m m ens e s cope of pr oj ect ed act i vity . ” Id. at70
. L i ke a L R M P , “a l and use plan i s general l ya st at em ent of pri ori t i es; i tgui des and cons tr ai ns act i ons , butdoes not( atl eas ti n the us ual cas e) pr es cr i be them. ” I d. at71. C ons i s t entw i th t hi s vi ew , the C our tconcl uded that“a s t at ementi n a pl an that B L M ‘ w i l l ’ t ake thi s , that , orthe otheract i on, ” i s nota l egal l ybi ndi ng comm i t m ent enfor cea bl e underthe A PA
. I d. at69; compar e 36 C
. F. R
. § 219. 3( b) ( s t at i ng L R M Ps do n o t “crea te an ylega l r igh ts”). 13 compar e N or t on, 542 U
. S. at69 ( “[A ] l and us e pl an i s not or di nar i l ythe medi um for af firm ati v e d ec isi o n s tha t i m p l ementthe age ncy ’ s ‘ pr oj ect i ons . ’ ” ( i nt ernal br acket s o m itted));
s ee a l s o Pl an R evi ew , 58 Fed. R eg. at19370 ( di s cus s i ng the n atur e of LR M Ps a nd pr oj ect d ec isi o n s). 9 Y e t w h e th e r a p a rticu lar a c tiv ityo r p ro g ra m is p a rt o f a L R M P o r su b se q u e n tly authori zed at the p roj ec t le v e l , the E S A ’s defini t i on of “a ct i on ” st i l l requi res F orest G u a rd ian s to d ire c t it s f

o c u s o n a n a c tiv ityo r p ro g ra m th a t alle g e d ly th re a ten s the lyn x . T h is i s beca us e o n ly in th e p re s e n c e o f s u c h a c tiv ity o r p ro g ra m , i
. e. , “a g e n c ya c tio n ,” d o e s a d u ty to c o n su lt ev e r a rise u n d e r § 7 (a )(2 ). S e e 5 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 2 .0 2 ; C a lifo rn ia S p o rtf ish in g P ro t. A l l i ance v. Feder al E ner gy R egul at oryC om m ’ n, 472 F. 3d 593, 595 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( “The E SA and the appl i cabl e r egul at i ons . . . m andat e cons ul t at i on . . . onl ybefor e an a gencyt akes
so m e a ff irm ati v e a g en cyac ti o n , su ch a s is s u in g a li ce n se.”). N ee d less to sa ythen , w e a re h a r d p r e s s e d t o c o n c l u d e , b a s e d o n th e a l l e g a t i o n s o f th e a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t , th a tth e t wo L R M P s o n w h ic h F o re s t G u a rd ia n s d e m a n d s c o n s u lta tio n c o n s titu te , i n their en t i r et y, an
a c tiv ity o r p ro g ra m , i
. e. , an “a ct i on, author i zed, funded, orcarr i ed out ” bythe For es tSer vi ce.14

16 U
. S. C
. § 1536( a) ( 2) ; compar e L uj an v. N at i onal W i l dl i fe Fed’ n, 497 U
. S. 871, 890- 94 &
n n . 2 , 3 (19 9 0 ) (r ejec ti n g a “ g en eric” c h all en g e u n d er th e A P A to the “ en ti rety ” o f B L M ’s “lan d w ith d raw al rev iew p rog ram ” c o u ch ed as u n law fu l age n cyac ti o n ). 1. W e h a v e se a rc h e d F o re st G u a rd ian s’ a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in v a in f o r so m e c o n c re te al l egat i on of “a ct i on” bey ond the mer e “i m pl ement at i on of the .
. . L R M Ps” w hi ch mi ght al l ow us t o s us t ai n i t on the i s s ue bef or e us . See, e. g. , T ur t l e I s l and R es t or at i on N etw or k v. N at i onal M ar i ne Fi s her i es Ser v. , 340 F. 3d 969, 970- 71 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( agenc yi s s uance of fi s hi ng perm i t s r equi r ed § 7( a) ( 2) cons ul t at i on) ; N atur al R es . D ef. C ounci l v. H ous t on, 146 F. 3d 1118, 1125 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( agenc yr enew al of w at erco n tr act s r equi r ed § 7( a) ( 2)
cons ul t at i on)
. A s t o L R M Ps ge ner al l y , For es tG uar d ians all eg es i n par agr aph 102 of the amended co m p la i ntthat“LR M Ps i ncl ude pr ogr ams orpr act i ces that‘ r es ul ti n: habi t at
c o n v e rsio n ; f

ra g m e n tatio n o r o b stru c tio n to lyn x m o v e m e n t; ro a d s o r w in ter re c re a tio n tra ils thatfac i l i t at e ac ces s t o hi s t or i cal l y n x h abi t atbycompet i t or s ; and fi r e exc l us i on w hi ch ch an g es th e v eg etati o n m o saic m aintaine d b yn atura l distu rba n ce p roc esse s. ’” Y et no w h ere i n the amended com pl ai nt can w e fi nd any m ent i on, s peci fi c t o the r es pect i ve LR M Ps fort he C a rso n a n d S a n ta F e N a tio n a l F o re sts , o f a n a u th o riz e d p ro g ra m , p ra c tice , p rojec t, or a c tiv ity th a t m ig h t am o u n t to “ a c tio n ” th re a ten in g th e c o n tin u e d e x iste n c e o f th e lyn x . S e e C a lifo rn ia S p o rt fish ing , 4 7 2 F
. 3 d at 59 7 (“T h e tri g g ering m ec h an ism fo r c o n su lt ati o n [u n d er § 7 (a)(2)] is an ag en cyac ti o n , n o t th e li sti n g o f a sp ec ies. ”). S im ilarly , p a ra g ra p h 1 1 0 o f th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t alle g e s in th e a b stra c t:15

L R M Ps i n t he Southern R ocki es m ayadver s el yi m pactl ynx and l ynx habi t at b y : (1 ) h a v in g a f

ire e x c lu s io n p o licyw h ich c h a n g e s th e v e g e tativ e m o sa ic m ai nt ai ned bynatur al di s turbance s ; ( 2 ) a l l o wi n g g r a z i n g o f d om es t i c l i ves t ock, w hi ch r educe s for age f

orl ynx pr ey ; ( 3) al l ow i ng r oads and w i nt err ecr eat i on tr ai l s thatfac i l i t at e ac ces s t o hi s t or i cal l ynx h ab it atbycompet i t or s ; ( 4) al l ow i ng l evel s of hum an ac ces s vi a for es tr oads that m ay p r es enta r i s k of in c id e n tal tra p p in g o r ill e g a l s h o o tin g o f lyn x ; (5 ) h a v in g lim ited d ire c tio n in the For es tPl an pert ai ni ng t o tr ee thi nni ng and for agi ng habi t at ; and ( 6) havi ng w eak di r ect i on fordi s tr i but i ng l ynx habi t at component s acr os s the l ands cape . W e do not di s agr ee w i th the pr opos i t i on thatpol i ci es , di r ect i ons , and al l ow ance s cont ai ned in a L R M P m ayind ir ec tl yim p ac t th e lyn x a n d its h a b it at ad v erse ly
. A fter all, thes e a re
m att er s cont ai ned w i thi n a LR M P on w hi ch age ncyact i ons ar e bas ed. B u tthi s does not
m ak e s uch pol i ci es , di r ect i ons , and al l ow ance s “ac t i on” r equi r i ng cons ul t at i on w i thi n the
m eani ng of §7( a) ( 2)
. Pol i ci es and d ir ec ti ons onl ygui de the For es tSer vi ce i n det erm i ni ng
w hetheran “a ct i on” maybe pr oper l yundert aken cons i s t ent w i th the LR M P. M or eover , t he fac tthata LR M P “al l ow s ” ce r t ai n acti vi t i es t o occuron for es tl ands does notcomm i tt he F o rest S erv ice to a n ything
. S ee P lan R ev iew , 5 8 F ed
. R eg . at 1 9 3 7 0 (cit ing ca ses); co m p are N o rto n , 5 4 2 U .S . at 7 2 (h o ld in g a lan d u se p lan ’s “ s tate m e n t to th e e f f e c t th a t B L M w ill conduct‘ U s e Supervi s i on and M oni t or i ng’ i n des i gnat ed ar eas –l i ke other‘ w i l l do’ pr oj ect i ons of age ncyact i on s etforth i n l and us e pl ans –ar e nota l egal l ybi ndi ng
comm i t m ent ”)
. “[M ] anyact i vi t i es al l ow ed byPl ans , s uch a s ti m b er ha r ves tand r oad
cons truct i on, ar e neve rcarr i ed out for a var i ety of r eas ons , s uch as fundi ng l i m i t at i ons and
en v ir o n m en t, w il d li fe o r po li cyco n side rati o n s. ” F inal R u le, 6 5 F ed
. R eg . at 16 0 7 9 ; com p are N or t on, 542 U
. S
. at 7 1
. W hatL R M Ps mi ght“al l ow ” i s thus r eadi l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om “ac tual act i ons as a r es ul tof pas torcurr enti m pl ement at i on of the Pl ans . ” Fi nal R ul e, 65M o st, if n o t all, ac tiv iti e s w h ich o c c u r w ith in a n a tio n a l f o re st re q u ire a p e rm it, 10 li ce n se, co n tr ac t, lease , o r oth er leg al i n stru m en t. O f c o u rse, as the ex am p le i n § 4 0 2
. 0 2 ’s defi ni t i on of “a ct i on” pr ovi des , the “gr ant i ng” of s uch i ns trum ent s cons t i tut es “ac t i on” under§ 7( a) ( 2)
. See 50 C
. F. R
. § 402. 02. A gui del i ne orpol i cyi n a LR M P st at i ng that s uch i ns trum ent s w i l l be ava i l abl e underappr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , how ever , does not c o n stitu te “ a c tio n .” In th is re g a rd , the S u p re m e C o u rt’s d isc u ss io n o f th e L R M P in O h io F o restryA ss’n
. v . S ierra C lub , 5 2 3 U
. S
. 7 2 6 (19 9 8 ), is i n stru cti v e. In tha t case , the S ierra C l ub chal l enged a L R M P on t he bas i s thatthe pl an perm i t t ed t oo m uch l oggi ng and clea rcu tt ing in p u rpo rt ed v iolati o n o f th e N F M A , N E P A , an d A P A
. T h e c o u rt s peci fi cal l yacknow l edged that“[t ] he Pl an perm i t s l oggi ng t o t ake pl ace on 126, 000 ( 197 s q. m i
. ) of the fe der al l yow ned ac r es . ” I d. at729 ( emphasi s added)
. O n r evi ew atthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age, the C our tnonethel es s hel d the Si err a C l ub’ s chal l enge t o the L R M P w as notr i pe forl ack of anydefi ni t i ve harm ar i s i ng fr om agenc yact i on: [ T ]h e p ro v isio n s o f

th e P lan th a t th e S ier ra C lu b c h a llen g e s d o n o t cr e a te a d v e rse e f

f e c ts o f a stric tlyleg a l k in d , tha t is e f f e c t o f a so rt th a t w o u ld have qua l i fi ed as harm . . . . [T]he ydo notcomm and any one t o do anythi ng ort o r efr ai n fr om doi ng anythi ng; theydo notgr ant , w i thhol d, orm odi fy a n yf o rm a l leg a l li c e n se , p o w e r, o r a u th o rity ; th e yd o n o t su b jec t an y o n e to a n yc iv il o r c ri m in a l lia b ility; th e yc re a te n o le g a l r ig h ts o r o b lig a tio n s . T hu s, for exam ple, the P l an d oes no tgive any on e a l egal r i gh tt o cu ttrees , n o r d o e s it a b o lish a n y o n e ’s le g a l au th o rityto o b jec t to tre e s b e in g c u t. [B ] efor e the For es tSer vi ce c an perm i tl oggi ng, i tm us tfocus upon a part i cul ars i t e, pr opos e a s peci fi c harves t i ng m ethod, pr epar e an e n v iro n m e n tal re v iew , p e rm it th e p u b lic a n o p p o rtu n ityto b e h e a rd , an d (if c h a llen g e d ) ju stif

yth e p ro p o sa l in c o u rt. I d. at733- 34; compar e 36 C
. F. R
. § 219. 3( b) ; s ee a l s o L uj an, 497 U
. S. at892- 93 n. 3. 16 Fed. R eg. at16079. 10

N ei therdo pr ov isi o n s i dent i fy i ng s peci fi c ar eas as appr opr i at e forcert ai n us es t hat
n o rm a llyo c c u r w ith in a f o r e st ( e. g. , r ecr eat i on, gr azi ng, t i m bercutt i ng, and the l i ke)
cons t i tut e “a ct i on” on the p art o f t he For es tSer vi ce w i thi n the meani ng of § 7( a) ( 2)
. T he17

FW S r egul at i on addr es s i ng “s ui t abl e us es ” w i thi n a nat i onal for es ts peci fi cal l ypr ovi des t hat id e n tific a tio n o f

sp e c if ic a re a s in a L R M P “ is g u id a n c e f o r p rojec t an d a c tiv ity deci s i onm aki ng, i s nota perm anentl and des i gnat i on, and i s s ubj ect t o change thr ough pl an
a m e n d m e n t o r p lan re v isio n . U se s o f sp e c if ic a re a s a re a p p ro v e d th ro u g h p rojec t an d a c tiv ity d ec isi o n m ak ing
. ” 3 6 C
. F
. R
. § 2 1 9
. 1 2 (a)(1). A L R M P cons i der ed i n i s ol at i on s i m pl yi s notan ongoi ng, s el f- i m pl ement i ng document
. Speci fi c ac t i vi t i es , pr ogr ams, and/ orpr oj ect s ar e nec es s aryt o i mpl ementthe pl an. S ee, e. g. , B osw orth, 44 3 F
. 3d at73 7; Lam b, 26 5 F
. 3d at10 42
. T ho se sa m e act i vit i es, pr ogr ams, and pr oj ect s m us tbe al l eged i n a compl ai ntthats eeks t o es t abl i s h an “a ct i ng”
a g e n c y ’ s d u tyt o c o n s u l tu n d e r§ 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f th e ES A. As we h a v e e x p l a i n e d , a LRMP envis i ons the for es tw i l l be used for m ul t i pl e purpos es , i ncl udi ng “out door r ecr eat i on, r ange, t i m ber , w at er s hed, w i l dl i fe a nd fi s h, and w i l dernes s . ” 16 U
. S. C
. § 1604( e) ( 1)
. A p la n or vi s i on i s cer t ai nl ya pr ecur s ort o “age ncyact i on, ” butnei theri s act i on r equi r i ng § 7( a) ( 2)
cons ul t at i on. 2. T he N i nth C i r cui t deci s i on i n Paci fi c R i ver s does not per s uade us otherw i s e. I n t hat
cas e, the N at i on al M arine Fi s her i es Ser vi ce ( N M FS) ha d l i s t ed the Snake Ri verchi nook salm o n as “ threa tene d ” u n d er the E S A
. T h e b asis fo r th a t suitw as th e F o rest S erv ice’s fai l ur e t o cons ul tw i th the N M FS re gar di ng the eff ect s of cert ai n L R M Ps on the s peci es . T he
co u rt ’s de scripti o n o f L R M P s in tha t case w as n o t un li k e o u r de scriptio n h e re . T h e c o u rt descri bed L R M P s as–18

es t abl i s h[i ng] for es t - w i de and a r ea- s peci fi c s t andar ds and gui del i nes t o w hi ch al l pr oj ect s m us tadher e . . . . T he LR M Ps i dent i fyl ands s ui t abl e fort i m ber pr oduct i on and other us es , and es t abl i s h an al l ow abl e s al e quant i tyof t i m ber and pr oduct i on t ar get s and s chedul es forfor age, r oad cons truct i on, and other economi c comm odi t i es . . . . E veryr es our ce pl an, perm i t , contr act , oranyother documentpert ai ni ng t o the us e of the for es tm us tbe cons i s t entw i th the LR M P. Pacific R i ver s , 30 F. 3d at 1052. T he courtfur therr efe rr ed t o L R M Ps a s “es t abl i s hi ng
r es our ce a nd l and us e pol i ci es ” and “s et [t i ng] forth cr i t er i a for harves t i ng r es our ces [. ] ” I d. at 1055- 56. N onethel es s , the court r ej ect ed as “i ncorr ect ” the For es tSer vi ce’ s ar gum entt hat “LR M Ps a r e notongoi ng agenc yact i on thr oughoutthei rdur at i on. ” I d. at 1053. R ather , t he C our tconcl uded: T he LR M Ps a r e compr ehens i ve managementpl ans governi ng a mul t i tude of i ndi vi dual pr oj ect s . I ndeed, everyi ndi vi dual pr oj ectpl anned i n both nat i onal forest s i nv olved i n this case i s i m plem ented according t o the L R M P s. T hu s, b ec au se the LR M Ps ha ve an ongoi ng and l ong- l as t i ng eff ecteven a ft er adopt i on, w e hol d t hatthe LR M Ps r epr es entongoi ng agenc yact i on. I d. C o n tr a ry to P a c if ic R iv e rs , o u r a n a lysis m a k e s p a in f u lly a p p a r e n t th a t “ s ta n d a rd s ,” “gui del i nes , ” “pol ici es, ” “c r i t er i a, ” “l and des i gnat i ons , ” and the l i ke appe ar i ng w i t hi n a L R M P d o n o t c o n s titu te “ a c t io n ” re q u ir in g c o n s u lta tio n u n d e r § 7 (a )( 2 ) o f th e E S A . A contr aryvi ew w oul d be t he equi val entof s ay i ng thatagenc yr egul at i ons cons t i tut e ongoi ng act i on beca us e s uch r egul at i ons cont i nual l yaff ectw hat goes on i n the for es t . O f cour s e, t he
very defi ni t i on of “act i on” i n § 402. 02 t el l s us thatthe “ pr om ul gat i on of r egul at i ons , ” nott he
r egul at i ons themsel ves , cons t i tut es “ac t i on. ” 50 C
. F. R
. § 402. 02 ( emphasi s added)
. W e have
n o q u a rre l w ith th e p ro p o sitio n th a t L R M P s m a yh a v e “ a n o n g o in g a n d lo n g -la stin g e f f e c t”Paci fi c R i ver s ’ r el i ance on T ennes s s ee V al l eyA uth. v. H i l l , 437 U
. S. 153 11 ( 1978) , t o s uppor ti t s hol di ng w as w hol l ym i s pl ace d. See Paci fi c R i ver s , 30 F. 3d at1054- 55. T ennes s ee V al l eydi d notaddr es s an i s s ue eve n r emot el ys i m i l art o the ques t i on of w h e th e r a L R M P c o n stitu tes “ a c tio n ” u n d e r § 7 (a )(2 ). A ll th e ju stic e s a g re e d th a t a fede r al agenc y ’ s pl ace m entof a vi r tual l ycompl et ed r i verdam i nt o oper at i on cons t i tut ed a c tio n o n th e p a rt o f

th e a g e n c y , at le a st in th e g e n e ric se n se o f th e w o rd . T h e q u e stio n in thatcas e w as w hetherthe ES A r equi r ed enj oi ni ng the oper at i on of a vi r tual l ycompl et ed dam w her e the dam m i ghter adi cat e the s nai l dart er , an enda nger ed s peci es of per ch. T he C our thel d thatpl aci ng the dam i nt o oper at i on cons t i tut ed ac t i on underthe ES A , and l et an i nj unct i on agai ns ti t s oper at i on s t and. T he C our texpl ai ned that“[i ] thas notbeen s how n, forexampl e, how T V A can c l os e the gat es of the Tel l i co D am w i thout‘ carry i ng out ’ an ac t i on thathas been ‘ author i zed’ and ‘ funded’ bya fe der al agenc y . ” Tennes s ee V al l ey , 437 U
. S. at173. W e di s agr ee w i th Paci fi c R i ver s ’ vi ew thatthe ar gum entthe agenc ym ade i n T ennes s ee V al l ey– thatthe ES A di d notappl yt o pr ogr ams and a ct i vi t i es vi r tua l l yc ompl e t e d b e fo r e the l i s t i ng of a s pe c i e s – was the s a me a r gu mentthe N M FS m ade i n thatcas e – thatL R M Ps w er e notongoi ng agenc yact i on underthe ES A
. See Paci fi c R i ver s , 30 F. 3d at1055. 19 on the fo rest. T hat ’ s the verypurpos e of a L R M P – t o gui de managementdeci s i ons
r egar di ng the us e of f

or es tr es our ces and t o es t abl i s h t o a s ubs t ant i al degr ee w hati s perm i t t ed t o o c c urw i thi n the fo r e s t . Butthi s do e s no ta l t e rou r c on c l us i on tha t the e nt i r e tyof LR M Ps do notcons t i tut e § 7 “a ct i on. ” I ns t ead, “ac t i vi t i es orpr ogr ams . . . aut h o r i zed, funded, or
c a rr i e d o u t , ” b yt h e F o r e s tS e r v i c e a r e th e “ a c t i on ” of w hi c h § 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) s p e a k s . 1 6 U. S
. C. § 1536( a) ( 2) ; 50 C
. F. R
. § 402. 02. A L R M P si m pl ydoes notfi tw i thi n thi s defi ni t i on. 11 III
. Wh a tF o r e s tGu a r d i a n s s e e k s i n th i s c a s e i s n o th i n g s h o r to f a wh o l e s a l e r e v i e w o f

t wo L R M Ps unde rthe gui s e of § 7( a) ( 2) cons ul t at i on. T o be s ur e, demandi ng the For es tSer vi ce
con sul tw i th F W S on the ent i rety of L R M P s for the C ars on and S anta Fe N at i on al F orest s,
ra th e r th a n o n a c tiv iti e s, p ro g ra m s, o r p rojec ts a p p ro v e d c o n s is ten t w ith th o se L R M P s, isA s i l l us tr at ed bythe For es tSer vi ce’ s vol unt arycons ul t at i on w i th FW S on 12 L R M Ps c over i ng a numberof nat i onal for es t s w i thi n the fourt een St at e l i s t i ng of the C anada L ynx, s ee s upr a n. 4, cons ul t at i on betw een the For es tSer vi ce a nd the FW S on h o w L R M P ’s i n the re g ion m igh t be a m en d ed to b est p rotec t th e lyn x m ayw ell b e m o re prudenti n s om e i ns t ance s than pr ol onged l i t i gat i on on the ques t i on of w hether i ndi vi dual i zed a gencyact i ons thr eat en the l ynx. See gene r al l yB i ol ogi cal A s s es s m entof the Effec t s of N at i onal For es tL and and Resour ce M anage m entPl ans and B ur eau of L and M an ag em en t L an d U se P lans o n C an ad a L yn x (19 9 9 ), ht tp: //w w w . fs
. fed. us /r 1/pl anni ng/ l ynx/r eport s /ba/ba. pdf. B utw hati s prudenti s not nece s s ar i l yw hati s l egal l yr equi r ed. 20 sim p ler a n d m o re c o st e f f e c ti v e f o r F o re st G u a rd ian s. E f f icie n c ya n d sy ste m ic 12 i m pr ovement by w hol es al e corr ect i on, how ever , cannotj us t i fys ki r t i ng the “a gencyact i on”
r e qu i s i t e t o § 7( a ) ( 2) c on s ul t a t i on . Se e Luj a n, 49 7 U
. S. a t89 3- 94
. The a pp r oa c h the ESA
r equi r es “i s under s t andabl yfrus tr at i ng t o an org ani zat i on . . . w hi ch has as i t s obj ect i ve
acr os s - the- boar d pr ot ect i on of ourN at i on’s w i l dl i fe .
. . . B utthi s i s the tr adi t i onal , and
r emai ns the norm al , m ode of ope r at i on bythe court s . ” I d. at894. A lth o u g h w e m u st a ss u m e F o re st G u a rd ian s c a n p ro v e a ll o f th e f a c ts a lleg e d in its
a mend e d c ompl a i nt , i t s a l l e ga t i on tha t“ [i ] mpl e ment a t i on of t he Car s on a nd Sa nt a Fe N a tio n a l F o re st L R M P s a re ‘a g e n c y a c tio n s’” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 7 (a )(2 ) o f

th e E S A is a l ega l c o n c l u s i o n th a t we n e e d n o t a c c e p t . W h e n r e v i e wi n g th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a nt of a
m ot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) (6), w e m us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe compl ai nts uffi ci ent l yal l eges fac t s s uppor t i ng al l the el ement s nece s s aryt o es t abl i s h an ent i t l ementt o r el i ef unde rthe l egal theorypr opos ed. B eca us e Fo rest G uar di ans has not al l eged anyact i vity , proj ect , or progra m authori zed, fund ed, or carri ed o ut bythe F orest Ser vi ce thatm i ght cons t i tut e “ac t i on” w i thi n § 7( a) ( 2) of the E SA , the For es tSer vi ce ha s no21

dutyt o cons ul tw i th the F W S pur s uant t o the st atut e. B eca us e F or es t G uar di ans ’ amended
com plai nt i s not act i on able, the judgm ent of the d i stri ctcou rti s– AF F I RMED
.