## Facts

- The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River under multiple federal statutes and river compacts.
- Reclamation issues an Annual Operating Plan (AOP) projecting dam releases and system operations for the upcoming year.
- Grand Canyon Trust, an environmental organization, alleged dam operations harmed Grand Canyon resources and threatened listed species, including the humpback chub.
- The operational framework for the dam was established in a 1996 environmental impact statement and resulting Record of Decision (ROD), along with related ESA biological opinions.
- The AOP was characterized by the court as a planning and reporting document describing how Reclamation expected to operate within the existing 1996 ROD framework and other legal constraints.
- Grand Canyon Trust sued Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the ESA, NEPA, and the APA, challenging the AOPs and alleging a failure to consult or reinitiate consultation and a failure to prepare new or supplemental NEPA analysis.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and intervenors; Grand Canyon Trust appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether issuance of the AOP constitutes “final agency action” reviewable under the APA, and whether the AOP independently triggers ESA § 7 consultation duties.
2. Whether Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service were required to reinitiate ESA consultation for Glen Canyon Dam operations based on alleged new information and continuing impacts on listed species.
3. Whether NEPA required a new or supplemental environmental impact statement (or other additional NEPA review) based on ongoing operations reflected in the AOP.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
- The court held the AOP was not final agency action because it did not itself change the governing legal regime, determine rights or obligations, or create legal consequences.
- The court rejected the claim that annual AOP issuance, as such, triggered new ESA § 7 consultation.
- The court rejected the reinitiation theory as presented, concluding the claims were not properly tied to a discrete, reviewable agency action or a clearly mandatory, enforceable duty under the APA.
- The court held NEPA did not require new or supplemental review because the AOP did not constitute a new major federal action and instead implemented the existing 1996 EIS/ROD framework.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review under the APA generally requires “final agency action”; a planning or informational document that does not impose new legal requirements or alter the legal framework is not final agency action.
- ESA § 7 consultation duties attach to the relevant underlying discretionary agency action with legal effect, not to downstream reporting or implementation documents that merely describe operations within an established decision.
- Claims seeking to compel ESA reinitiation must be anchored in a discrete, enforceable agency duty and a justiciable agency action (including a cognizable failure to act), not a generalized challenge to ongoing program implementation.
- NEPA obligations to prepare new or supplemental analysis depend on a new major federal action or a substantial change from prior analyzed decisions; annual planning documents consistent with an existing ROD typically do not trigger additional NEPA documentation.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Glen Canyon Dam annual operating plans functioned as nonbinding planning reports implementing an existing operational decision, so they were not final agency action and did not, by themselves, require renewed ESA consultation or additional NEPA review.


Grand Canyon Tr. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 691 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2012)