National Wildlife Federation et al v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 51 Motion Augment the Administrative Record. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/21/15. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 14-590-DRH-DGW

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiffs move to supplement the certified administrative record filed by
defendants (Doc. 57). Plaintiffs allege that the administrative record is incomplete
because defendants omitted from it thirteen documents that are pertinent to the
Court’s review of the final agency actions at issue. Plaintiffs have proposed a
supplemental administrative record that includes the omitted documents.
Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that augmentation of the administrative
record is both unnecessary and improper.
Here, augmentation is unnecessary because the existing report gives ample
explanation

of

defendants’

decision-making

process.

When

reviewing

administrative decisions, the court’s task is to assess the agency decision based on
the record the agency presents to the court. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,
470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985). “[T]he focal point for judicial review should be the
administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in
Page 1 of 2

the reviewing court.” Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, (1973). Judicial review
cannot take place where the administrative record is deficient or requires
speculation. See Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420
(1971). However, that is not the case here. Defendants have provided sufficient
documentation in the existing record to explain the rationale for the decisions at
issue.
Augmentation is improper because plaintiffs have failed to show that the
documents they seek to include were within the scope of defendants’ consideration
in reaching the challenged decisions. Judicial review should be based on the
administrative record “that was before the [agency] at the time [the decision was
made].” Id. While plaintiffs argue that defendants were aware of the omitted
documents, they have not shown that such documents factored into defendants’
decision-making process.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Augment
Defendants’ Administrative Record (Doc. 51).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of January, 2015.

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2015.01.21
15:38:30 -06'00'

United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2