## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service managed national forests in Texas under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) through land and resource management plans (LRMPs) implemented by site-specific projects, with environmental review governed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- The Forest Service’s timber practices in the Texas national forests relied heavily on even-aged management methods (including clearcutting and regeneration cuts).
- Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and Texas Committee on Natural Resources challenged the Forest Service’s overall timber-management approach and long-running “on-the-ground” practices, rather than limiting the suit to identified LRMP provisions, particular environmental documents, or specific timber-sale decisions.
- The plaintiffs sought broad relief aimed at changing the Forest Service’s timber-management regime across the Texas national forests.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs limited their claims to “identifiable final agency action” reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 704, or instead brought an impermissible program-wide challenge to Forest Service management practices.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not confine their challenge to identifiable final agency actions as required by APA § 704.
- The court concluded that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating and granting relief on a programmatic challenge.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and injunction and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review under the APA generally requires a challenge to a discrete, identifiable “final agency action” for which there is no other adequate remedy in court.
- The APA does not authorize generalized, programmatic attacks on an agency’s overall management regime or aggregated practices over time.
- Under NFMA’s planning structure, LRMPs function as program-level guidance implemented through later site-specific decisions; challenges commonly must be directed to final plan decisions that are fit for review or to specific implementing projects where effects are concrete.
- Broad injunctive relief is improper where plaintiffs fail to identify the particular final agency decisions being reviewed.

## Conclusion

The en banc court vacated an injunction against even-aged timber practices because the plaintiffs’ claims targeted an overarching timber-management program instead of specific, reviewable final agency actions, leaving future challenges to proceed only if tied to discrete plan or project decisions.


Sierra Club v. Peterson, 228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2000) (en banc)