Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04071/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH F I L L D · Court of Appeah UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAil&f11ted s,r~ Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BAR MK RANCHES; ROBERT REDD; 

HEIDI REDD; K. S. SUMMERS 

LIVESTOCK; TWO SWIPE RANCH; 

JOHN W. REDD; DEAN ROBINSON; 

GARY HALLS; GARY HALLS; 

ALETA DALTON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CLAYTON YUETTER, Secretary of ) 

Agriculture; F. DALE ROBERTSON, ) 

Chief of the Forest Service, ) 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

Defendants-Appellants. 

) 

) 

MAY 19 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-4071 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

(D.C. No. 89-C-131) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

W. F. Schroeder, Vale, Oregon; W. Alan Schroeder of Schroeder & 

Lezamiz, Boise, Idaho; and Richard C. Cahoon of Marsden, Orton, 

Cahoon & Gottfredson, Salt Lake City, Utah, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Miles E. Flint, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David C. 

Shilton and Robert H. Oakley, Department of Justice, Environment 

and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.; Joseph P. 

Stringer, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Agriculture, Ogden, Utah; and Daniel D. Price, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before MCKAY, Chief Judge, LOGAN and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order granting summary 

judgment for Defendants in Plaintiffs' action for review of a 

Forest Service administrative decision. Plaintiffs contend that 

the district court erred in upholding the administrative action 

because Defendants failed to comply with their own agency appeal 

record regulations in arriving at the administrative decision and 

that the Administrative Record filed with the district court was 

improperly developed. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm. 

I. 

Plaintiffs are a group of landowners who hold national forest 

grazing permits. On February 25, 1987, the Forest Supervisor 

authorized the transplant of 150 elk to National Forest System 

land located on the Manti-LaSal National Forest near Monticello, 

Utah. Pursuant to the procedure set out in 36 C.F.R. § 211.lS(f) 

(1987) ,

2 Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Intermountain 

Regional Forester, contesting the order, and the appeals were 

consolidated for administrative review. 

On January 15, 1988, the Regional Forester advised Plaintiffs 

that the agency appeal record was closed as of December 20, 1987. 

1 The record filed in the district court by the Forest Service 

for judici~l review of the Forest Service's decision is referred 

to in this opinion as the Administrative Record. The record 

developed through the internal agency review process is referred 

to as the agency appeal record. 

2 All cites to 36 C.F.R. § 211.18 are cites to the regulations 

as written in 1987, when the Forest Service issued its initial 

decision and when Plaintiffs first filed for administrative 

review. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 2 
However, after finding the agency appeal record inadequate, the 

Regional Forester suspended the appeals process and asked the 

Forest Supervisor to provide supplemental information. See 36 

C.F.R. § 211.18(q). Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to 

review and comment on the new information. On March 25, 1988 the 

Regional Forester affirmed the Forest Supervisor's decision. 

Plaintiffs then filed their second level administrative 

appeal with the Chief of the Forest Service. See id. 

§ 211.18(f) (1) (ii). On April 22, 1988, Plaintiffs' attorney was 

provided with the agency appeal record, and on May 12, 1988, the 

Regional Forester transmitted the agency appeal record to the 

Chief. On December 7, 1988, the Chief closed the second level 

agency appeal record, and on January 30, 1989, Plaintiffs were 

informed that the Chief had affirmed the decision. The Secretary 

of Agriculture subsequently declined discretionary review, and the 

decision became final. ~ ig. § 211.18(f) (3), (6). 

On February 8, 1989, Plaintiffs filed the present action in 

district court seeking judicial review of the Forest Service 

decision to transplant the elk. On September 28, 1990, Defendants 

filed their Administrative Record and a motion for summary 

judgment with the district court. Plaintiffs filed a motion to 

reject the Administrative Record and to strike Defendants' motion 

for summary judgment on the grounds that the Forest Service had 

failed to comply with its own regulations concerning the 

development of the agency appeal record and that the 

Administrative Record was inadequately developed. The district 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 3 
court concluded that the Forest Service had properly adhered to 

its own regulations and that the Administrative Record was 

adequate to evaluate the agency's decision and denied Plaintiffs' 

motion. Plaintiffs were instructed to respond to Defendants' 

motion for summary judgment within thirty days. In their response 

memorandum, Plaintiffs declined to respond to the motion for 

summary judgment, and elected instead to rely only on an appeal to 

this court on the agency appeal record and Administrative Record 

issues. On April 7, 1992, the district court granted Defendants' 

motion for summary judgment . 

II. 

Plaintiffs challenge the district court's adoption of the 

Forest Service's interpretation of 36 C.F.R. § 211.lS(r). This 

regulation provides: "[a]n appeal decision will be based only on 

the record." Plaintiffs allege that the Forest Service violated 

§ 211.lB(r) by considering information outside the agency appeal 

record in reaching its decision. Plaintiffs support this claim by 

pointing to the Administrative Record filed in the district court 

which contains more evidentiary material than was contained in the 

agency appeal record developed by the Regional Forester and the 

Chief during the administrative review process. Plaintiffs 

request that we remand the case to the Forest Service with 

instructions to follow the regulation. We review the district 

court's interpretation of§ 211.lS(r) de novo. Dodson v. Zelez, 

917 F.2d 1250, 1255 (1990). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 4 
While we agree with Plaintiffs that agencies are required to 

follow their own regulations, see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 

683, 694-96 (1974); Edwards v. Califano, 619 F.2d 865, 869 (10th 

Cir. 1980), we also note that an agency's interpretation of its 

own regulations, including its procedural rules, is entitled to 

great deference, City of Gilette. Wyoming v. FERC, 737 F.2d 883, 

884-85 (10th Cir. 1984). We will only reject an agency's 

interpretation if it is unreasonable, plainly erroneous, or 

inconsistent with the regulation's plain meaning. Id. at 885; 

Downtown Medical Center/Comprehensive Health Care Clinic v. Bowen, 

944 F.2d 756, 768 (10th Cir. 1991). 

The Forest Service construes its regulations as requiring 

that the Deciding Officer forward only those documents which are 

relevant to the agency appeal issues to the Reviewing Officer, 

making the record considered by the Deciding Officer different 

from the one developed later during the agency review process. 36 

C.F.R. § 211.18(p), (q). We agree and hold that the agency's 

interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the regulation's 

plain meaning. 

First, the plain language of the regulation refers to appeal 

decisions, not to all decisions. Therefore, § 211.18(r) speaks 

only to the procedure which must be followed during agency review 

and says nothing with regard to the procedures the Deciding 

Officer is obligated to follow in making the initial decision. 

Second, reading§ 211.18(r) in conjunction§ 211.18(p), further 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 5 
supports the Forest Service's construction. Under§ 211.lS(p), 

the agency appeal record is defined as: 

.... a distinct set of identifiable documents 

directly concerning the appeal, including, but not 

limited to, notices of appeal, comments, statements of 

reasons, responsive statements, procedural 

determinations, correspondence, summaries of oral 

presentations and related documents, appeal decisions, 

and other information the Reviewing Officer may consider 

necessary to reach a decision. 

Id. (emphasis added). It is apparent from this regulation that 

the Deciding Officer is not required to forward to the initial 

Reviewing Officer all information that he had before him in making 

the decision. Instead, he need only forward selected documents 

that he considers relevant to the appeal issues. Thereafter, the 

agency appeal record can be supplemented by additional information 

from both parties before the record is closed. 36 C.F.R. 

§ 211.lS(p). If the Reviewing Officer considers the agency appeal 

record inadequate to affirm or reverse the decision, he can 

suspend the appeals process and request additional information. 

36 C.F.R. § 211.lS(q). Consequently, the agency appeal record is 

usually different than the record considered by the Deciding 

Officer, including some items that were not before the Deciding 

Officer and excluding some items that were before him. As a 

result, the fact that the Administrative Record contained more 

evidentiary material than the agency appeal record is not evidence 

-6-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 6 
' 

that the Forest Service violated§ 211.lB(r) .

3 

III. 

Plaintiffs next allege that imperfections in the 

Administrative Record filed with the district court kept the court 

from adequately reviewing the Forest Service's actions. 

Plaintiffs claim that the Administrative Record is both 

overinclusive and underinclusive, including some documents not 

considered by the agency and failing to include other documents 

that were considered by the agency. 

A district court reviews an agency action to determine if it 

was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A). A review 

under this standard is generally based on the full administrative 

record that was before all decision makers, including in this case 

the Deciding Officer and the Reviewing Officers, at the time of 

the decision. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park. Inc. v. Volpe, 

401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971). The district court must have before it 

the "whole record" on which the agency acted. Appalachian Power 

Co. v. EPA, 477 F.2d 495, 507 (4th Cir. 1973). S,,e,,e .al§.o Overton 

3 Plaintiffs, in one sentence of their lengthy brief, also make 

a conclusory allegation that 36 C.F.R. § 211.lB(p) and (r), if 

interpreted as we do above, violate their procedural due process 

rights. Plaintiffs state that their due process rights were 

violated because they were denied the opportunity to address some 

of the evidence on which the Forest Service relied. We do not 

address this claim, however, because Plaintiffs provide no legal 

or factual support for this assertion. See Boone v. Carlsbad 

Bancor_poration. Inc., 972 F.2d 1545, 1554 n.6 (10th Cir. 1992) 

(court refused to consider due process challenge where appellants 

merely mentioned an undefined constitutional claim in their 

opening brief without any supporting argument or authorities). 

-7-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 7 
Park, 401 U.S. at 419. "[T]he focal point for judicial review 

should be the administrative record already in existence, not some 

new record made initially in the reviewing court." Camp v. Pitts, 

411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). The complete administrative record 

consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly 

considered by the agency. Lloyd v. Illinois Regional Transp. 

Authority, 548 F. Supp. 575, 590 (N.D. Ill. 1982); Tenneco Oil Co. 

v. Department of Energy, 475 F. Supp. 299, 317 (D. Del. 1979). 

The "whole record" in this case consists of all documents and 

materials considered by the Forest Supervisor (the Deciding 

Officer) in making his initial decision, as well as all documents 

and materials contained in the agency appeal record as developed 

throughout the agency review process by the Regional Forester and 

the Chief (the Reviewing Officers). Therefore, as long as 

Defendants submitted all documents and information considered and 

developed at all three stages of the Forest Service's decision and 

review process, nothing more and nothing less, the Administrative 

Record submitted to the district court was correct. 

An agency may not unilaterally determine what constitutes the 

Administrative Record, Tenneco Oil, 475 F. Supp. at 317, nor can 

the agency supplement the Administrative Record submitted to the 

district court with post hoc rationalizations for its decision, 

American Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 539 

(1981); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 419. 

However, the designation of the Administrative Record, like any 

established administrative procedure, is entitled to a presumption 

-8-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 8 
of administrative regularity. Wilson v. Hodel, 758 F.2d 1369, 

1374 (10th Cir. 1985). The court assumes the agency properly 

designated the Administrative Record absent clear evidence to the 

contrary. See ig. When a showing is made that the record may not 

be complete, limited discovery is appropriate to resolve that 

question. Tenneco Oil, 475 F. Supp. at 317. The harmless error 

rule applies to judicial review of administrative proceedings, and 

errors in such administrative proceedings will not require 

reversal unless Plaintiffs can show they were prejudiced. All 

Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 1443 (10th 

Cir. 1992) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706 which states that "due account 

shall be taken for the rule of prejudicial error" in judicial 

review of agency action). 

The Forest Service submitted sworn affidavits that the 

Administrative Record filed in the district court was properly 

designated, and Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of 

clearly establishing that the Administrative Record was improperly 

designated. Although Plaintiffs allege and can verify that 

certain documents included in the Administrative Record filed with 

the district court were not included in the agency appeal record, 

they fail to allege facts to show that these documents were not 

part of the materials considered by the Deciding Officer. 

Furthermore, Plaintiffs stipulated in a March 6, 1991 pretrial 

order that no further discovery was necessary to complete the 

Administrative Record. Therefore, the presumption of regularity 

in the Administrative Record applies. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 9 
Even if some of the documents were inappropriately included 

in the Administrative Rec~rd, Plaintiffs have failed to show how 

they were prejudiced by these documents. Plaintiffs have alleged 

that the Forest Service submitted documents to the district court 

as post hoc rationalizations for the decision. However, 

Plaintiffs fail to show how these alleged post hoc 

rationalizations prejudice them. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (requiring 

showing of prejudice); All Indian Pueblo Council, 975 F.2d at 1443 

(same). Although allegations of a post hoc addition to the 

Administrative Record sufficiently alleges procedural error, an 

allegation of a post hoc addition does not in itself sufficiently 

allege prejudice. 

AFFIRMED. 

-10-

Appellate Case: 92-4071 Document: 010110115079 Date Filed: 05/19/1993 Page: 10