United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 96-8094.
PRESERVE ENDANGERED AREAS OF COBB'S HISTORY, INC., Roger Peaster,
Heidi Peaster, Johnny Plunkett, Bury Plunkett, John Mowell and
Marie Mowell, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Togo D. West, Secretary of
the Army, Wayne M. Boy, Colonel, District Engineer, Savannah
District Corps of Engineers, Necholus Ogden, Chief, Regulatory
Branch, Savannah District Corps of Engineers, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Carol M. Browner, Administrator,
John H. Hankinson, Regional Administrator, and Cobb County,
Georgia, Defendants-Appellees.
July 11, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. (No. 1:95-CV-1394-WCO), William C. O'Kelley,
Judge.
Before CARNES, Circuit Judge, and FAY and GIBSON *, Senior Circuit
Judges.
FAY, Senior Circuit Judge:
The plaintiffs in this action challenged a proposed highway
construction project in Cobb County, Georgia. They alleged
violations of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic
Preservation Act. In extremely well-reasoned orders, the District
Court dismissed certain claims and granted the defendants summary
judgment on all the remaining claims. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. (P.E.A.C.H.)
and various individuals brought suit to prevent the construction of
*
Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
a 4.75 mile highway in Cobb County Georgia. The highway would run
through a Historic District in Cobb County and would impact
approximately 3.77 acres of wetlands. The County developed a
mitigation plan in order to minimize the possible harmful effects
of the highway. The plan included the preservation of 19.7 acres
of existing wetlands and the restoration of at least 7.8 acres of
previously cleared and drained floodplain or wetland area. Cobb
County also executed a Memorandum of Agreement on Historic
Preservation in order to mitigate the effects on the historic
character of the region. The Agreement requires the county to take
specific measures. These measures involve limiting access to the
road from the historic district, bridging certain roads to minimize
the adverse impact on historic properties, aesthetic signage
restrictions, site stabilization, archeological data recovery, the
stabilization of the Woolen Mills historic structure, and a 70 acre
historic heritage park that should minimize future development in
and near the historic district.
In April of 1995 the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(a)) to
Cobb County, authorizing it to impact the 3.77 acres of wetlands.
The permit was conditioned on compliance with the Memorandum of
Agreement on Historic Preservation and the wetland mitigation plan.
Also in April 1995, the Army Corps District Engineer issued an
environmental assessment for the project. The assessment included
a finding of no significant impact and concluded that an
Environmental Impact Statement would not be required.
The plaintiffs filed suit against Cobb County, the Army Corps
of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
§§ 1531 et seq.), and the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. § 470).
The District Court entered a protective order prohibiting the
plaintiffs from engaging in any discovery and limiting the court's
review to the administrative record. The District Court granted
the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims brought under the
citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, ruling that neither
the EPA nor the Army Corps of Engineers was subject to suit in this
case. Based on the administrative record, the District Court
granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The
plaintiffs appealed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The District Court's entry of a protective order must be
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Washington v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir.1992).
The court's dismissal of the claims under the citizen suit
provisions of the Clean Water Act presents a legal issue, as does
the decision to limit review to the administrative record. We
review questions of law de novo. See Bechtel Const. Co. v.
Secretary of Labor, 50 F.3d 926, 931 (11th Cir.1995).
The District Court's order of summary judgment must also be
reviewed de novo. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Tanker, 957
F.2d 1575, 1578 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 981, 113 S.Ct.
484, 121 L.Ed.2d 388 (1992). Summary judgment is proper if the
pleadings, depositions, and affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corporation v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265
(1986). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Augusta Iron and Steel Works, Inc. v.
Employers Insurance of Wausau, 835 F.2d 855, 856 (11th Cir.1988).
However, even in the context of summary judgment, an agency action
is entitled to great deference. Under the Administrative Procedure
Act, a court shall set aside an action of an administrative agency
where it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The court shall not substitute its judgment
for that of the agency. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v.
Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823-24, 28 L.Ed.2d 136
(1971).
III. ANALYSIS
A. The District Court did not err when it confined its review to
the administrative record and prohibited all discovery.
The focal point for judicial review of an administrative
agency's action should be the administrative record. Camp v.
Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 1244, 36 L.Ed.2d 106
(1973). The role of the court is not to conduct its own
investigation and substitute its own judgment for the
administrative agency's decision. Volpe, 401 U.S. at 416, 91 S.Ct.
at 823-24. Rather, the "task of the reviewing court is to apply
the appropriate ... standard of review ... to the agency decision
based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court."
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44, 105
S.Ct. 1598, 1606-07, 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985).
If the record before the agency does not support the agency
action, if the agency has not considered all relevant factors,
or if the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the
challenged agency action on the basis of the record before it,
the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand
to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.
The reviewing court is not generally empowered to conduct a de
novo inquiry into the matter being reviewed and to reach its
own conclusions based on such an inquiry.... The factfinding
capacity of the district court is thus typically
unnecessary.... [The court is] to decide, on the basis of the
record the agency provides, whether the action passes muster
under the appropriate APA standard of review.
Id. at 744, 105 S.Ct. at 1607.
Thus while certain circumstances may justify going beyond the
administrative record,1 a court conducting a judicial review is not
"generally empowered" to do so. In the instant case, we find
nothing that would necessitate expanding the court's review beyond
the administrative record.2 The record itself adequately explains
1
The Ninth Circuit has specified that a court may go beyond
the administrative record only where: 1) an agency's failure to
explain its action effectively frustrates judicial review; 2) it
appears that the agency relied on materials not included in the
record; 3) technical terms or complex subjects need to be
explained; or 4) there is a strong showing of agency bad faith
or improper behavior. Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d
1432, 1436-37 (9th Cir.1988). We need not consider these
exceptions as none of them apply in the instant case.
2
We find no merit in the plaintiffs' contention that there
is a dispute as to what actually constitutes the administrative
record. According to the plaintiffs, two administrative records
were produced by the Corps in this case, and the latter one may
have been improperly manufactured. However, only one official,
complete administrative record was compiled by the Corps and
filed with the court. There is, of course, nothing wrong with an
agency compiling and organizing the complete administrative
record after litigation has begun from all the files of agency
staff involved in the agency action, as long as that record only
contains documents considered by the staff prior to the agency
action.
the agency's decision and shows that it weighed the relevant
factors.3 The District Court did not err in limiting its review to
the administrative record and so did not abuse its discretion by
granting a protective order prohibiting any discovery.
B. The District Court did not err in granting summary judgment.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court shall set
aside an action of an administrative agency only where it is
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. 5 U.S.C. §
706(2)(A). The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of
the agency. Volpe, 401 U.S. at 416, 91 S.Ct. at 823-24.
Plaintiffs contend that the Army Corps acted arbitrarily and
capriciously when it: 1) concluded that the project was not
unlawfully segmented, 2) issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
and so did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, and 3)
issued a Section 404 permit.
i. The Army Corps of Engineers was not arbitrary and capricious in
finding that the project was not unlawfully segmented.
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants unlawfully avoided
the legal requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
for all major federal actions by analyzing this project alone, and
not with the other related projects in Cobb County. It is true
that the Corps cannot "evade [its] responsibilities" under the
National Environmental Policy Act by "artificially dividing a major
federal action into smaller components, each without a
"significant' impact." Coalition on Sensible Transportation, Inc.
v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 68 (D.C.Cir.1987). However, just because the
3
The content of the administrative record is discussed
further in the next section.
project at issue connects existing highways does not mean that it
must be considered as part of a larger highway project; all roads
must begin and end somewhere. Village of Los Ranchos de
Albuquerque v. Barnhart, 906 F.2d 1477, 1483-84 (10th Cir.1990),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1017, 112 L.Ed.2d 1099
(1991).
Under Federal Highway Administration guidelines, in order to
be regarded as a stand-alone project, the road must:
1) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to
address environmental matters on a broad scope;
2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e.,
be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no
additional transportation improvements in the area are made;
and
3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other
reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.
23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f).
The Corps analyzed each of these factors. The road's eastern
and western termini are both completed, busy, north-south arterial
roads. The Corps concluded that these were logical termini.
Moreover, the Corps concluded that the scope of the analysis of the
proposed road would not restrict consideration of alternatives.
This conclusion was based on a review of the Minutes of the Board
of Commissioners for Cobb County, the county transportation
studies, maps showing the county's transportation plans, and
transportation studies conducted by the county.
However, the "independent utility" factor is by far the most
important. "Apparently an inquiry into independent utility reveals
whether the project is indeed a separate project, justifying the
consideration of the environmental effects of that project alone."
Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 440
(5th Cir.1981);4 see also Dole, 826 F.2d at 69 (holding that the
"logical terminus" criterion is extremely hard to analyze where a
proposed road runs within a single metropolitan area as opposed to
running between two cities).
In the instant case, the Corps was not arbitrary and
capricious when it determined that the project had independent
utility. The Corps required Cobb County to show that the project
had independent utility. The county defended the independent
utility of the project and supported its position with over fifty
exhibits. The new road will take residents of the western part of
the county to the commercial activity in the eastern part of the
county. According to the county, the highway would be fully
operational even if no other roads were built. Some of the
east-west roads in the vicinity are already operating at
unacceptable levels of service, and the daily traffic volume for
most of the roadway systems is expected to at least double by 2010.
Based on this information, the Corps found that the road would
provide independent utility as a means of transportation from the
western residential part of the county to the commercial and
employment activities in the east.
The District Court was correct in finding that there are no
genuine issues of material fact in this regard, and that the
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law: the Army
4
The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent all
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit decided prior to October 1,
1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th
Cir.1981) (en banc).
Corps of Engineers did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it
analyzed the highway as a stand-alone project.
ii. The Army Corps was not arbitrary and capricious in determining
that no Environmental Impact Statement was required.
The Corps must prepare an Environmental Impact statement for
"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). In this case, the
Corps concluded that the approval of the project and issuance of a
Section 404 permit did not constitute a major federal action.
Whether a federal action is "major" or not depends on the
significance of the impact on the human environment; "[m]ajor
reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of
significantly." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18.
The Corps did consider the project's possible impact on
federally protected wetlands:
The proposed project would impact 3.8 acres of wetlands. The
county will undertake a number of control measures to minimize
the impacts to wetlands. Cobb County has purchased a tract of
land ... for a proposed park. [The county's mitigation plan]
identifies 19.7 acres of wetlands to be preserved within Cobb
County landholdings. Cobb County also proposed to restore a
minimum of 7.8 acres of previously cleared and drained
floodplain/wetland area.
Based on this information, the Corps found no significant impact in
regard to wetlands, and that an Environmental Impact Statement was
not needed in that regard. Although the plaintiffs disagree with
the conclusion of the Corps, they can point to nothing that would
make the Corps decision arbitrary and capricious. The Corps
considered the impact on the wetlands, considered the county's
mitigation plan, and reasonably concluded that the impact on
wetlands would not be significant.
The plaintiffs also argue that the Corps was obligated to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement because of the project's
effect on the historic district. The Corps did identify an adverse
impact on the historic district. However, the Corps also
considered the county's mitigation plan, and made the Section 404
permit contingent on that plan.
The plan requires the county to take specific measures to
mitigate possible impacts on the historic nature of the area.
These measures involve limiting access to the road from the
historic district, bridging certain roads to minimize the adverse
impact on historic properties, aesthetic signage restrictions, site
stabilization, archeological data recovery, the stabilization of
the Woolen Mills historic structure, and a historic heritage park
that should minimize future development in and near the historic
district.
Again, the conclusion of the Corps that the project would not
significantly affect the historic environment was not arbitrary and
capricious. The plaintiffs may disagree with that conclusion, but
the Corps considered their arguments, considered the effects on the
district, and considered the county's mitigation plan. The
conclusion was based on those considerations.
iii. The Army Corps was not arbitrary and capricious in issuing a
Section 404 permit.
The plaintiffs argue that the Corps acted arbitrarily and
capriciously when it granted the Section 404 permit because the
project was unlawfully segmented and because the Corps was required
to issue an Environmental Impact Statement. Because the Corps did
not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it 1) analyzed the road
as a stand-alone project, and 2) did not prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement, it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when
it issued a Section 404 permit.
C. The District Court did not err in dismissing the claims brought
under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act.
Under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, the Army Corps of
Engineers is authorized to regulate the discharge of dredged or
fill material into U.S. waters, including wetlands. The actions of
the Corps must be based on EPA guidelines, and the Administrator of
the EPA may overrule certain decisions of the Corps. Under 33
U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2), a citizen can sue the Administrator "where
there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act
or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary ..."
The United States must expressly and unambiguously waive its
sovereign immunity before it can be sued. See United States v.
Idaho ex rel. Director, Idaho Dept. Of Water Resources, 508 U.S. 1,
6, 113 S.Ct. 1893, 1896, 123 L.Ed.2d 563 (1993). Any statutory
provisions allowing suits against the United States must be
construed strictly. Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 685-
86, 103 S.Ct. 3274, 3277-78, 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983).
Section (a)(2) of the citizen suit provision of the Clean
Water Act does not clearly and ambiguously waive sovereign immunity
in regard to the Army Corps of Engineers. The statute states that
a citizen can sue "where there is alleged a failure of the
Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which
is not discretionary ..." 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2). It does not
refer to the Army Corps of Engineers. We must conclude that
Congress did not intend to waive sovereign immunity in regard to
suits against the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water
Act.5
The Clean Water Act does allow suits against the
Administrator of the EPA where there is alleged a "failure of the
Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which
is not discretionary ..." However, the decision of the
Administrator not to overrule the decision of the Army Corps is
discretionary. The Administrator is "authorized to prohibit" and
"authorized to deny or restrict the use of any defined area for
specification." 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c). Thus the Administrator has
the authority to overrule the Corps. The EPA views this authority
as discretionary. In regulations adopted pursuant to the statute,
the Regional Administrator "may" initiate certain actions if he
believes that an "unacceptable adverse effect" could result. 40
C.F.R. § 231.3(a). We agree with the EPA that this power is
discretionary. By statute, the Administrator is authorized rather
than mandated to overrule the Corps. 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c). Because
this power is discretionary, the citizen suit provision of the
Clean Water Act does not apply.
The plaintiffs argue that this interpretation of the statute
renders the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act
5
In National Wildlife Federation v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313
(4th Cir.1988), the Fourth Circuit held that a suit against the
Corps under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2) was valid because the Corps'
duty is nondiscretionary, and the EPA Administrator is ultimately
responsible for the protection of wetlands. According to the
Fourth Circuit, "Congress cannot have intended to allow citizens
to challenge erroneous wetlands determinations when the EPA
Administrator makes them but to prohibit such challenges when the
Corps makes the determination and the EPA fails to exert its
authority over the Corps' determination." Hanson, 859 F.2d at
316. We most respectfully disagree.
meaningless for Section 404 permit decisions; in a case such as
this, neither the Corps nor the Administrator can be sued under the
Clean Water Act. However, the Supreme Court has stressed that a
court's role in interpreting a statute is limited: "We have stated
time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in
a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there."
Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112
S.Ct. 1146, 1149-50, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992).
IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the District Court applied the correct rules
of law and the appropriate standards when it limited its review to
the administrative record, when it granted summary judgment, and
when it dismissed the claims based on the citizen suit provision of
the Clean Water Act. The judgment is AFFIRMED.