Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Request to Supplement Administrative Record
in Judicial Review Denied

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Sierra Club v. Bosworth, No. CIV. 03-3572, 2005 WL 82234, at *1 (D.Minn. Jan. 14, 2005), the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Sierra Club's request to supplement the existing administrative record in judicial review of the United States Forest Service's actions.

Background

The United States Forest Service (Forest Service) issued a Decision Notice authorizing the sale of timber from a specified area within the Superior National Forest. See id. at *1. Prior to issuing the Decision Notice, the Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and had concluded that a full Environmental Impact Statement was not necessary because "the Project was not a major federal action that would impact the quality of the human environment significantly." Id. The Forest Service also determined that the sale of timber was "not likely to adversely affect" the habitat of Canada lynx within the project area. See id. at *2. Plaintiff Sierra Club filed an administrative appeal of the Forest Service's decision, which was resolved in favor of the Forest Service. See id. at *3. Thereafter, Sierra Club filed suit against Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, and other defendants alleging violations of NEPA, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Endangered Species Act. See id.

Arguments

Sierra Club sought to supplement the existing administrative record by admitting into evidence "Forest Plan revision documents and vicinity maps showing other neighboring timber projects." Id. at *4. Sierra Club argued that "the additional documents [were] necessary to demonstrate that the Forest Service failed to consider the Forest Plan revision and the neighboring timber project." Id. The defendants argued that "this case lack[ed] the extraordinary circumstances required for supplementation." Id.

Analysis and Holding

The court stated that judicial review was "generally limited to the administrative record that was before the agency at the time it made its decision." Id. The court acknowledged that extra-record supplementation and discovery were justified in some circumstances, but stated that the exceptions were very limited. See id. Additionally, the court explained that the Eighth Circuit has "demonstrated a strong preference for excluding extra-record documentation." Id. Noting that the administrative record in this case consisted of more than 3,000 pages, the court found that admission into evidence of the supplemental materials was not necessary for effective judicial review of the agency decision. See id. Accordingly, the court denied Sierra Club's request to supplement the administrative record. See id.

The case was decided on January 15, 2005; this summary was posted Mar. 24, 2005.