## Facts

- Environmental groups challenged the U.S. Forest Service’s timber management in the National Forests in Texas, including use of even-aged methods such as clearcutting and shelterwood cutting.
- The dispute centered on whether the Forest Service’s practices and forest plans adequately protected soil and watershed resources as required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Forest Service planning regulations.
- After a 1997 bench trial in the Eastern District of Texas, the district court received extensive live scientific testimony and other evidence on soil compaction, erosion, and hydrological effects of timber harvesting.
- The district court found the Forest Service’s even-aged management did not adequately protect soil and watershed resources and therefore violated NFMA and implementing regulations.
- The district court enjoined timber harvesting across the National Forests in Texas until the Forest Service could demonstrate that its management complied with NFMA “on the ground.”
- Federal officials appealed, challenging the liability findings and the breadth of the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court applied the correct APA standard of review in assessing alleged NFMA violations by the Forest Service.
2. Whether the district court improperly relied on extra-record scientific evidence and effectively conducted de novo review of agency decisionmaking.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing a broad, forest-wide injunction halting timber harvesting until an affirmative, forward-looking showing of compliance.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and injunction and remanded.
- The court held that APA review generally must be confined to the administrative record and conducted under a deferential standard, not through a trial that reweighs scientific evidence.
- The court concluded the district court impermissibly relied on substantial extra-record evidence as a basis to determine substantive legality, rather than using any extra-record material only for narrow, permitted purposes.
- The court directed reconsideration of NFMA compliance and any remedy using the proper record-based APA framework.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of agency action under the APA is ordinarily limited to the administrative record before the agency and reviewed under a deferential standard (commonly framed as arbitrary-and-capricious review).
- Courts may not substitute their scientific judgments for those of an expert agency; the inquiry is whether the agency considered relevant factors and reasonably explained its decision based on the record.
- Extra-record evidence is permissible only in narrow circumstances (e.g., to explain technical matters, evaluate whether relevant factors were considered, or address bad faith), and not as a new substantive basis for invalidating agency action.
- Injunctive relief against an agency must be no more burdensome than necessary to provide complete relief and should be tied to identified, record-supported legal violations rather than imposing open-ended supervisory conditions.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit set aside the district court’s NFMA violation ruling and systemwide timber-harvest injunction because the district court departed from record-based APA review by conducting a de novo scientific trial and relying heavily on extra-record evidence; the case was remanded for reconsideration under the proper administrative-law framework and for any relief to be narrowly tailored to proven, record-supported violations.


Sierra Club v. Peterson, 185 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 1999)