## Facts

- The Black Hills National Forest experienced a mountain pine beetle infestation that killed trees and increased wildfire risk.
- The U.S. Forest Service operated under a 1997 forest plan and began a “Phase II Amendment” process intended to revise the plan, including addressing beetle impacts, fire risk, and timber-harvest levels.
- The Forest Service set a projected completion date for the Phase II Amendment process, then extended that timeline.
- The Governor and State of South Dakota sued the Forest Service under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging unlawful agency inaction and unreasonable delay in responding to the infestation and related fire risk.
- Plaintiffs asserted that federal forest-management statutes and the planning framework (including NEPA and NFMA) imposed a duty to protect the forest from fire and insects and required timely completion of plan amendments.
- Plaintiffs sought an order compelling timber harvesting and requiring prompt issuance of the Phase II Amendments to enable increased harvesting and fuel reduction.
- The Forest Service moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing the requested relief would intrude on discretionary decisions and bypass required administrative procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether delays in completing forest plan amendments and undertaking additional timber-harvest measures constituted agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” that a court may compel under APA § 706(1).
2. Whether NEPA, NFMA, or related authorities imposed a clear, nondiscretionary duty to harvest timber and/or complete plan amendments by an enforceable deadline.

## Decision

- The court granted the Forest Service’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the action.
- The court held that APA § 706(1) permits compulsion only of discrete agency action that is legally required.
- The court found no statutory or regulatory provision imposing a specific, nondiscretionary duty to initiate particular timber harvests or complete the Phase II Amendments by a date certain.
- The court concluded the requested order would effectively short-circuit ongoing administrative processes, including environmental review and public participation associated with NEPA and forest planning.

## Legal Principles

- APA § 706(1) authorizes courts to compel agency action only when the agency has failed to take a discrete action that the law requires.
- Broad statutory objectives and general management responsibilities do not create judicially enforceable duties to implement particular forest-management measures or to follow a court-imposed schedule.
- Courts may not use § 706(1) to direct the substance or timing of discretionary policy and planning judgments committed to an agency.
- Judicial relief that would bypass required environmental analysis, notice, and comment procedures is improper where those procedures are part of the governing statutory scheme.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed South Dakota’s APA claim because the Forest Service’s planning pace and choices about timber harvesting and plan amendments were discretionary and not the omission of a discrete, legally required action that a court could compel under § 706(1).


Rounds v. U.S. Forest Serv., 301 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (D. Wyo. 2004)