## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed over one million acres of old-growth forest in western Oregon containing habitat for the northern spotted owl, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- After the owl was proposed for listing and before the listing became final, BLM adopted an “Interim Management Strategy” for owl habitat (the Jamison Strategy) that set operative criteria for selecting timber sale areas.
- The Jamison Strategy replaced owl-related standards in existing BLM timber management plans and was used in practice to design and approve timber sales.
- ESA § 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure agency actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat.
- Environmental organizations served ESA citizen-suit notice and then sued, alleging BLM implemented the Jamison Strategy without required § 7 consultation.
- After notice, BLM submitted numerous individual timber sales for FWS consultation but did not submit the Jamison Strategy itself.
- The district court ruled the Jamison Strategy was an “agency action” requiring consultation and enjoined further implementation until consultation occurred, but declined to enjoin certain timber sales that had already undergone individual consultation and were allowed by FWS.
- Both sides appealed: BLM argued the strategy was only a nonbinding policy statement; plaintiffs sought to enjoin the already-consulted sales as well.

## Issues

1. Whether BLM’s Jamison Strategy constituted an “agency action” under ESA § 7 requiring consultation with FWS before implementation.
2. Whether the district court erred by declining to enjoin timber sales that had already received individual, site-specific ESA consultation and FWS review.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the Jamison Strategy was an ESA § 7 “agency action” because it functioned as an operative, programmatic plan replacing prior standards and governing timber-sale selection in owl habitat.
- The court affirmed the injunction barring further implementation of the Jamison Strategy until BLM completed § 7 consultation on the strategy.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enjoin the already-consulted timber sales that had been submitted to FWS and cleared through site-specific consultation.
- The judgment was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- “Agency action” under ESA § 7 is construed broadly and can include programmatic management strategies or plans that govern future projects and may affect a listed species.
- An agency cannot avoid § 7 consultation by characterizing a binding, operative management plan as a mere internal policy statement when it supersedes prior standards and is implemented in practice.
- Project-by-project consultation does not necessarily satisfy § 7 when an overarching plan itself drives cumulative or regional effects; the plan may independently require consultation.
- The scope of injunctive relief in ESA procedural violations is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a court may allow already-consulted projects to proceed while enjoining further implementation of an unconsulted programmatic plan.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required BLM to consult with FWS on the Jamison Strategy because it was a programmatic “agency action” affecting spotted owl habitat, but upheld the district court’s decision to allow certain timber sales to proceed where those sales had already undergone individual ESA consultation and FWS review.


Lane Cnty. Audubon Soc'y v. Jamison, 958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1992)