Opinion ID: 36501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Extra-Record Materials

Text: In addition to the evidence pertaining to wake vortex effects, petitioners sought in the Air Force cases to introduce extra-record evidence regarding livestock, socioeconomic, and noise effects. The district court excluded all extra-record submissions. Petitioners argue that, by not considering the extrarecord evidence, the district court could not adequately review the Air Force’s NEPA compliance. Because district courts have discretion to consider extra-record evidence, we review the district court’s decision not to consider such evidence for abuse of discretion.50 “A district court abuses its discretion if it: (1) relies on clearly erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3) misapplies the law to the facts.”51 In the present case, the district court correctly stated the law regarding extra-record evidence in NEPA cases.52 Without 50 Northcoast Envtl. Ctr. v. Glickman, 136 F.3d 660, 665 (9th Cir. 1998); Hoffman, 132 F.3d at 16; see Davidson Country Oil Supply Co. Inc. v. Klockner, Inc., 908 F.2d 1238, 1245 (5th Cir. 1990) (stating that “[t]he trial court’s discretion to admit or exclude evidence is generally broad”). 51 McClure v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 2003). 52 Davis Mountains, 249 F. Supp. 2d at 775-76; Welch, 249 F. Supp. 2d at 809-10; see supra section IV.C. 24 discussing its rationale, however, it excluded all of petitioners’ proffered extrarecord evidence. As discussed in section IV.C., consideration of the Dwinnell text and expert declarations is necessary to determine whether the Air Force took a hard look at wake vortex effects. Thus, by excluding that evidence, the district court “misapplie[d] the law to the facts.” Because this court has reviewed the extrarecord submissions in its de novo review, however, we need not remand to the district court, but instead dispose of this issue by remanding to the Air Force to prepare an adequate supplemental EIS. The remaining items of evidence consist of declarations of DMTPHA members and experts on livestock, economic, and noise effects of the RBTI. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. The DMTPHA members’ declarations are largely cumulative of evidence already in the administrative record. In addition, the Air Force was entitled to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own experts regarding livestock, economic, and noise effects.53 None of petitioners’ proffered evidence on these issues shows that those experts’ opinions were unreasonable, but instead 53 Sabine River Auth., 951 F.2d at 678. 25 presents opposing expert opinions. Because the Air Force’s reliance on its own experts does not render its decisions arbitrary and capricious, admission of petitioners’ opposing expert opinions would not show that the Air Force failed to take a hard look at these effects. Thus, admission of petitioners’ extra-record evidence on all issues other than wake vortex was unnecessary to determine whether the Air Force adequately considered environmental impacts of the RBTI54, and the district court’s exclusion of that evidence was not an abuse of discretion.