Filed: Feb. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . Before the Court is the State of Alaska's Motion to Supplement Administrative Record, the Federal Defendants' Opposition, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, et al.'s Joinder to the Federal Defendants' Opposition and the Reply. 1 The State seeks to supplement the administrative records of the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service by adding transcripts of Alaska Board of Game hearings and other documents from the Al
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . Before the Court is the State of Alaska's Motion to Supplement Administrative Record, the Federal Defendants' Opposition, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, et al.'s Joinder to the Federal Defendants' Opposition and the Reply. 1 The State seeks to supplement the administrative records of the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service by adding transcripts of Alaska Board of Game hearings and other documents from the Ala..
More
ORDER RE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.
Before the Court is the State of Alaska's Motion to Supplement Administrative Record, the Federal Defendants' Opposition, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, et al.'s Joinder to the Federal Defendants' Opposition and the Reply.1 The State seeks to supplement the administrative records of the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service by adding transcripts of Alaska Board of Game hearings and other documents from the Alaska Board of Game that relate to the taking of predators. The State describes the other documents as "including proposals, reports, and written public comments."2 The State maintains such supplementation is warranted because the federal agencies have asserted that their regulations "were prompted by actions taken by the Alaska Board of Game."3 Thus, the State maintains that the Board of Game's records were indirectly considered by the federal agencies and "are necessary to properly review whether the NPS and FWS acted reasonably."4
Supplementation of an agency record is permitted "(1) if necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision, (2) when the agency has relied on documents not in the record, or (3) when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter."5 Here, the State maintains that the proposed supplementation is needed "to explain the agency's action" and because "it appears that the agency has relied on documents or materials not included in the administrative record."6
For the following reasons, the motion to supplement will be denied. A motion to supplement the administrative record with certain items must be "supported by concrete evidence that these items were directly or indirectly considered by the agency."7 The State has not offered such evidence here. Rather, it asserts that the supplementation is warranted as it will better explain the reason for the State agency's determination. But the reasons why the Board of Game took the actions it took is not before this Court on review. Rather, this Court is only reviewing the federal agencies' actions based on the federal administrative records that each agency had.
Furthermore, the State had the opportunity to provide these materials to Federal Defendants during the comment periods for the challenged rules, and did not do so. It cannot seek to add these materials now.
For these reasons, the State's Motion to Supplement Administrative Records, at Docket 110, is DENIED.8 Pursuant to this Court's order at Docket 127, the parties shall file a proposed schedule or schedules for summary judgment briefing within 14 days of the date of this order.
