## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed about 2.5 million acres of Utah public lands designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs) under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
- Environmental organizations alleged that off-road vehicle use and other activities were damaging WSAs and that BLM was failing to comply with FLPMA’s requirement to manage WSAs “so as not to impair” their wilderness suitability.
- The organizations sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) § 706(1), asking a court to compel BLM to take protective measures, including restrictions on off-road vehicle use.
- They also contended that NEPA required BLM to supplement land-use-plan environmental impact statements as conditions changed over time.
- The district court dismissed, the Tenth Circuit reversed in relevant part, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether APA § 706(1) authorizes courts to compel BLM to improve WSA protection based on general statutory and planning directives.
2. Whether FLPMA’s nonimpairment requirement or BLM land use plans create enforceable, discrete duties that a court may compel under APA § 706(1).
3. Whether continued management under an approved land use plan constitutes “ongoing major Federal action” requiring ongoing NEPA supplementation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded.
- APA § 706(1) permits relief only when a plaintiff identifies a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take.
- The requested relief was an impermissible programmatic challenge to BLM’s land management, not an effort to compel a specific, required action.
- FLPMA’s nonimpairment mandate is mandatory as to the objective but leaves BLM discretion as to the means, so it did not supply a discrete action compellable under § 706(1).
- BLM land use plans generally state goals and allowable uses and do not, by themselves, create enforceable action-forcing duties under § 706(1).
- For NEPA, approval of the land use plan is the relevant “major Federal action”; implementation over time is not an ongoing action that triggers a continuing duty to supplement the plan-level EIS absent a new, discrete federal decision.

## Legal Principles

- A court may compel agency action under APA § 706(1) only where the agency failed to take a discrete action that it was required by law to take.
- APA § 706(1) does not allow broad, programmatic attacks on an agency’s overall compliance with statutory objectives or its general pattern of administration.
- A statutory mandate that sets an objective but leaves substantial discretion about how to achieve it generally does not create a compellable duty to take particular steps.
- Land use plans are typically planning instruments describing goals, allowable uses, and future steps; they are not ordinarily self-executing commands enforceable as specific duties under § 706(1).
- NEPA supplementation duties do not convert routine plan implementation into ongoing “major Federal action”; supplementation is tied to discrete federal actions.

## Conclusion

The Court held that challenges to BLM’s alleged failure to protect WSAs could not proceed under APA § 706(1) because plaintiffs did not identify a discrete, legally required agency action unlawfully withheld, and it rejected the theory that ongoing plan implementation triggers continuous NEPA supplementation.


Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004)