Opinion ID: 72034
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion to Supplement

Text: MCEAA has moved to supplement the administrative record with two documents that contain information that MCEAA contends the agencies should have considered before reaching their determinations. [23] MCEAA argues that by failing to consider the type of information contained in these documents, the agencies failed to consider the best scientific and commercial data in rendering their decision, as § 7 of the ESA requires. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The documents at issue discuss the impacts of surrounding private developments on the population of golden-cheeked warblers at the United States Army's Camp Bullis Military Reservation in Bexar County, which is located approximately thirty-five miles from the proposed quarry. The first document is a 2005 Final Programmatic Biological Opinion that was prepared by the FWS regarding the § 7 implications of Camp Bullis's Military Mission and Associated Land Management Practices and Endangered Species Management Plan. The document notes that one of the surrounding pressures on warblers was development around Camp Bullis that result[ed] in destruction of habitat and a reduction in the amount of available habitat. The second document is a series of Field Season Reports that the Army submitted to the FWS between 2000 and 2008. These reports contain the results of surveys performed of Camp Bullis's warbler population and show an increase in the population of singing male warblers during those years. When reviewing an agency action under the APA, we review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party. 5 U.S.C. § 706. The record consists of the order involved, any findings or reports on which that order is based, and the pleadings, evidence, and other parts of the proceedings before the agency. FED. R.APP. P. 16(a). Supplementation of the administrative record is not allowed unless the moving party demonstrates unusual circumstances justifying a departure from the general presumption that review is limited to the record compiled by the agency. Am. Wildlands v. Kempthorne, 530 F.3d 991, 1002 (D.C.Cir.2008). Supplementation may be permitted when: (1) the agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision, ... (2) the district court needed to supplement the record with background information in order to determine whether the agency considered all of the relevant factors, or (3) the agency failed to explain administrative action so as to frustrate judicial review. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). MCEAA contends that supplementation is appropriate in this case because the FWS deliberately or negligently failed to consider the findings in its own 2005 Biological Opinion and the survey documents it received as to the effects of development on warbler habitat before concurring with the STB's findings in the Final EIS. The STB and FWS oppose supplementation, arguing that this is not the type of extraordinary circumstance that merits supplementation and that there is no reason why they should have considered these documents. The information that MCEAA urges from the proffered documents can be reduced to a simple proposition: When the golden-cheeked warbler's habitat is marginalized or destroyed by what MCEAA refers to as the edge effects of developmentfor example, land clearing, noise, lighting, and vibrationthe warbler will move, if possible, to an area where the habitat is better. All of the survey evidence available to the STB and FWS, however, showed that there were no listed species in the proposed rail and Phase One arearendering any analysis of whether the rail and quarry activities would drive them out of that area superfluous. Furthermore, the EIS documents discussed the quality and extent of potential habitat in the proposed rail and Phase One areas and gave extensive consideration to how construction and operations could proceed while best preserving the small amount of low quality habitat present in the Phase One area. The documents with which MCEAA proposes to supplement the administrative record do not contain information potentially adverse to the Decision and do not set out additional factors that the STB and FWS failed to consider. Accordingly, we deny the motion to supplement the administrative record. [24] MCEAA's petition also attached an affidavit by John Kennerly, a landowner to the north of the 1,760-acre tract, dated January 12, 2009. This affidavit was not part of the administrative record and MCEAA has not moved to supplement the administrative record with this document. Accordingly, we do not consider Kennerly's affidavit in the disposition of this case.