## Facts

- Environmental organizations challenged U.S. Forest Service management of four Texas national forests: Angelina, Davy Crockett, Sabine, and Sam Houston.
- The Forest Service adopted and implemented forest plans that emphasized timber production, including clearcutting and even-aged management.
- Plaintiffs alleged the plans and on-the-ground practices failed to comply with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and NFMA planning regulations (36 C.F.R. pt. 219).
- Plaintiffs focused on regulatory duties to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species.
- The dispute included the Forest Service’s use of management indicator species, habitat modeling, and monitoring/data collection to support conclusions about wildlife viability.
- Timber-industry groups intervened in support of continued timber harvesting.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service’s Texas forest plans and management complied with NFMA planning regulations requiring diversity of plant and animal communities and maintenance of viable wildlife populations.
2. Whether the NFMA planning regulations impose judicially enforceable, substantive duties beyond procedural plan preparation.
3. Whether the Forest Service’s indicator-species approach, habitat models, and available population/habitat data adequately supported viability determinations.
4. If violations existed, what equitable relief was appropriate, including whether to restrict timber harvesting pending compliance.

## Decision

- The court found the Forest Service was not in full compliance with NFMA and the NFMA planning regulations governing wildlife viability and related diversity obligations.
- The court treated the viability and diversity regulations as binding constraints on Forest Service decisionmaking, not merely planning formalities.
- The court concluded the administrative support for certain viability conclusions was insufficient where reliance on models and limited data did not reasonably demonstrate maintenance of viable populations.
- The court granted remedial relief, including injunctive limits on certain timber practices, pending actions to correct the regulatory deficiencies.

## Legal Principles

- NFMA planning regulations (including 36 C.F.R. § 219.19) can impose enforceable substantive requirements that constrain forest plan content and implementation.
- Compliance requires more than producing planning documents; the agency must show a reasoned, record-supported connection between management prescriptions and the regulatory requirement to maintain viable populations and provide for ecological diversity.
- Use of management indicator species and habitat modeling is permissible, but the agency’s viability conclusions must be supported by adequate data, analysis, and monitoring sufficient to justify those conclusions.
- When ongoing management threatens environmental harm and the agency is out of compliance, injunctive relief may be warranted to prevent further harm while the agency remedies violations.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Forest Service’s management of the Texas national forests violated NFMA planning regulations concerning wildlife viability and ecological diversity and imposed injunctive restrictions on certain timber-harvesting practices until the agency brought its planning and supporting analysis into compliance.


Sierra Club v. Glickman, 974 F. Supp. 905 (E.D. Tex. 1997)