Opinion ID: 164231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of Impacts

Text: 32 Appellants' remaining NEPA-related arguments concern the EIS's impacts analysis. NEPA requires an EIS to include an analysis of the environmental impact of the proposed action, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i), including ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. We address each of the alleged deficiencies in the EIS's impacts analysis below. 33
34 First, Appellants challenge the EIS's assessment of economic impacts. They specifically contest its conclusory determination that any changes in value of rural properties surrounding Holloman due to the increased overflights accompanying the proposed German Air Force TTE expansion were impossible to quantify. They argue that the U.S. Air Force should at least have attempted to assign a dollar value to these changes, or discussed other failed attempts, before concluding that quantification was impossible. 35 The final EIS's discussion of the proposed action's potential impact on land values was included in response to public comments raising the issue. The EIS noted that, in the rural Holloman surroundings, changes in daily aircraft overflight may or may not be readily discernible to the ground-based observer, and even [w]here such changes can be discerned, existing variability in land value due to locations and improvements make it impossible to quantify any potential difference that might be associated with aircraft overflight. Appellants' App. at 156. The EIS concluded that given the rural nature of the area and the relatively sporadic nature of overflights, changes in overflight would not be expected to produce measurable impacts on the economic value of the underlying land. Id. The EIS did not cite specific scientific support for the assertion that changes in land value were impossible to quantify. Rather, it referred to documentation from some locations [in the United States], particularly around airports, where changes in land value resulting from increased overflights had been difficult to quantify. 36 Under the circumstances here, we do not believe the EIS's treatment of the land valuation issue constituted a violation of NEPA, despite the EIS's failure to cite by name or discuss in detail the documentation it relied on for its conclusion that valuation was impossible. An agency's obligation in regard to incomplete or unavailable information is governed by the CEQ regulations. 7 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. An agency must obtain and include in the EIS information on `reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts' that are essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives if the costs of obtaining such information are not exorbitant. Holy Cross Wilderness Fund v. Madigan, 960 F.2d 1515, 1523 (10th Cir.1992). If the costs of obtaining the information are exorbitant `or the means to obtain it are not known' the agency must follow four specific steps. Id. (referring to the four steps outlined in 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)). These steps include the obligation to summarize existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(3). Again, however, these steps are only required in regard to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts. Id. § 1502.22(b). 37 Here, it is clear from the record that the U.S. Air Force did not consider decreased land values a reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impact; rather, it concluded that no measurable decrease in land values was likely to occur. The evidence in the record supports this conclusion. The EIS indicates that implementation of the proposed action would increase the average number of daily sorties flying out of Holloman from fifty-nine to seventy-six, and the number of touch-and-go operations and low approaches from 112 to 157 per day. This would result in an increase in the daily use of each MTR and MOA of between one and three sorties per day. Appellants' App. at 130. An MTR's width, which may be sixty or more miles, would further disperse the impact of the increased use. Id. at 156. While Appellants note that noise levels over some private land would reach 80 dB, they do not specify the nature of this land's current use, and the record shows that the noise in those areas was already at the 75 dB level without the proposed action. Id. at 132. We hold that the U.S. Air Force's conclusion that the proposed action's impact on property values was minimal does not violate the rule of reason. The U.S. Air Force was therefore not obligated to take the further steps required under 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. See Colo. Envt'l Coalition, 185 F.3d at 1172 (holding that the Forest Service had no obligation under 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 to obtain unavailable information that was not `essential' to reasoned decision making). 38 Appellants argue that the affidavit of Mr. Armand Smith, a professional real estate appraiser, compels a contrary conclusion. We disagree. As indicated above, Mr. Smith's affidavit is part of the extra-record evidence that the district court held inadmissible. While judicial review of agency action is normally restricted to the administrative record, we have recognized that consideration of extra-record materials is appropriate in extremely limited circumstances, such as where the agency ignored relevant factors it should have considered or considered factors left out of the formal record. Am. Mining Cong. v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617, 626 (10th Cir.1985). To be sure, where, as is often the case in the NEPA context, we are faced with an agency's technical or scientific analysis, an initial examination of the extra-record evidence in question may aid us in determining whether these circumstances are present. As a number of other circuits have explained, such an initial review may illuminate whether an EIS has neglected to mention a serious environmental consequence, failed adequately to discuss some reasonable alternative, or otherwise swept stubborn problems or serious criticism ... under the rug. Or. Natural Res. Council v. Lowe, 109 F.3d 521, 526-27 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Sierra Club v. Peterson, 185 F.3d 349, 370 (5th Cir.1999), vacated on other grounds on reh'g, 228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir.2000); Valley Citizens for a Safe Env't v. Aldridge, 886 F.2d 458, 460 (1st Cir.1989); Suffolk County v. Sec'y of Interior, 562 F.2d 1368, 1384-85 (2d Cir.1977); see also Sabine River Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 678 (5th Cir.1992). 39 Here, neither the record nor an initial review of Mr. Smith's affidavit convinces us that there are gaps or inadequacies in the EIS that would make admission of extra-record evidence appropriate. Mr. Smith asserts that [l]ands beneath an MTR ... may suffer a loss in value, that it is not difficult to calculate the decrease in land value as a result of overflights, and that the decrease in value would occur regardless of the number of overflights or their sporadic nature. Appellants' App. at 396-97. In essence, Mr. Smith simply presents an expert opinion conflicting with the U.S. Air Force's conclusion that a decrease in value is not reasonably foreseeable. It is well established that `agencies are entitled to rely on their own experts so long as their decisions are not arbitrary and capricious.' Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1036 (quoting Colo. Envtl. Coalition, 185 F.3d at 1173 n. 12). We therefore affirm the district court's order to strike this affidavit as extra-record evidence. 40
41 Appellants cite a string of alleged deficiencies in the EIS's noise analysis, including, for example, use of outdated methodology and data, reliance on computer-based simulation programs rather than actual measurement on the ground, failure to take into account the rural nature of the area, failure to distinguish between MOAs and MTRs when assessing impacts, considering 65 dB rather than 55 dB the threshold for significant noise impact on humans, and considering 80 dB an acceptable noise level for livestock. Appellants' Br. at 23-28. 42 We believe, however, that the noise analysis in the EIS is adequate. As explained in the EIS, the U.S. Air Force used three different noise metrics to analyze the noise impact of the proposed action. Appellees' Supp.App. at 118. It used the maximum sound level (L max ) metric (measuring the maximum noise an aircraft would produce when flying directly overhead) and the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) metric (combining the maximum sound level with the duration of the overflight noise) to tabulate the noise typically produced by the five major types of aircraft used at Holloman in a single overflight at different flight altitudes. Id. at 119. It then used the Onset Rate Adjusted Monthly Day-Night Average Sound Level (L dnmr ) metric to assess the overall noise impact produced by the proposed expansion at Holloman. This metric makes adjustments to take into account increased noise impacts during the night or due to the startle effect of high-speed, low-altitude fighter aircraft flights. The U.S. Air Force computed L dnmr by means of a MRNMAP computer-simulation noise model, using measured aircraft noise collected by the Department of Defense for such purposes together with Holloman's projected training schedules for the proposed action. Id. at 125. The EIS cites studies published in 1995 and 1996 that validate the reliability of such aircraft noise model predictions. Id. at 127. 43 The EIS explains its choice of 65 dB as the noise threshold for humans by noting that this threshold is typically used for assessing noise impacts on residential areas around airports. Id. at 131. Despite this conclusion, the EIS does, in its section on land use impacts, discuss the impact of noise increases that do not reach this threshold. Id. at 144-53; see also id. at 132-33 (indicating the proposed action's noise impacts throughout the entire region). The EIS also notes one area, the McGregor Range Restricted Area R-5103, where noise levels would reach a maximum L dnmr of 80 dB. Id. at 153. However, it explains that humans would be denied access to this area while this occurred and that this level is considered compatible with livestock uses under the Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) guidelines. Id. The latter conclusion is supported by studies cited in the EIS's Appendix J. Appellants' App. at 203. 44 We repeat that `agencies are entitled to rely on their own experts so long as their decisions are not arbitrary and capricious.' Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1036 (quoting Colo. Envt'l Coalition, 185 F.3d at 1173 n. 12). Neither the noise analysis methodology used in the EIS nor the EIS's assertions regarding the noise threshold levels for humans and livestock are arbitrary or capricious. We have previously referred to the SEL and L dnmr metrics as well-established and widely accepted methodologies and upheld their use by the FAA and Air National Guard. Id., at 1035; see also City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F.3d 448, 459 (8th Cir.2000) (upholding the FAA's use of cumulative noise data); Communities, Inc. v. Busey, 956 F.2d 619, 624 (6th Cir.1992) (same); Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 200 (upholding the FAA's use of SEL and L dnmr data); Davison v. Dep't of Defense, 560 F.Supp. 1019, 1028-29 (S.D.Ohio 1982) (upholding the U.S. Air Force's use of computer-simulated average noise levels although recognizing that this methodology did not account for the impact of a significant increase in nighttime flights). 45 Appellants have not met their burden of convincing us to do otherwise here. The extra-record affidavits of Dr. Weida and Dr. Kryter, stricken by the district court as indicated above, along with rebuttal affidavits that have been submitted by the U.S. Air Force, indicate that there is disagreement regarding the reliability of the methodology and whether it has been applied accurately in this EIS. This only demonstrates that experts disagree, which, as discussed above, is an insufficient basis for admitting extra-record evidence or for holding an EIS inadequate. We therefore affirm the district court's decision to strike these affidavits. 46 We hold that the EIS's discussion of changes in noise levels and the effects of these changes on land use provides the requisite basis for informed public comment and informed decisionmaking. 47
48 Appellants claim that the EIS's noise impacts analysis failed to take into account the effect of aerial refueling operations. Appellants seem to suggest that the EIS should have addressed the impact of aerial refueling separately from its overall noise analysis. However, according to the U.S. Air Force, overflights of aircraft engaged in aerial refueling were incorporated in the calculations of L dnmr levels, making an independent analysis unnecessary. We have no basis for contesting the U.S. Air Force's assertion, especially given the fact that the EIS openly describes aerial refueling training as one of the activities in which German Air Force aircrews would be engaged. Appellants' App. at 98. Having already upheld the EIS's use of the L dnmr metric, we reject this additional challenge to the EIS's noise analysis. 49
50 Appellants argue that the U.S. Air Force should have conduct[ed] a contemporary study of the impact of low-altitude flights on livestock because the studies cited in the EIS were outdated and insufficient. Appellants' Br. at 33. Appellants cite anecdotal evidence, presented in the public hearings, which they claim demonstrates that low-altitude flights at Holloman have on occasion already caused significant disturbance to livestock. 51 We are unpersuaded that the U.S. Air Force was required to carry out its own study regarding the impact of low-level overflights on livestock. We have recognized that agencies must use the best available scientific information when assessing environmental impacts. Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1034. It appears that the U.S. Air Force has done so here. Appendix J of the EIS cites studies, dating from 1960 to 1996, reporting that livestock may run, buck, or be startled by sudden high (75 to 100 dB) noise levels but that livestock can adapt to regularly-occurring noise at such levels. Some of the studies suggested that low-level overflights produced a greater effect than sonic booms, and that the impact may be greater on gestating animals. The U.S. Air Force acknowledges that the number of studies addressing the effect of noise on livestock is small. However, we have no reason to believe that the studies' conclusions are inaccurate, particularly in light of other studies, also discussed in Appendix J, which reach the same conclusion in regard to bighorn sheep, bison, elk, deer, and antelope. See Appellants' App. at 202. 52 Appellants cite public hearing testimony that a horse startled by an overflight knocked over the person shoeing him and that a horse owner suspected that overflights were responsible for the deaths of a number of horses who ran over a fence at night. In response to such testimony, the U.S. Air Force expanded the EIS's Appendix J and acknowledged that low-level overflights may or may not lead to livestock damage. Id. at 292. Appellants argue that, based on one person's testimony that overflights had harmed her ostriches, the final EIS should have cited an army discussion of claims submitted to the military for damage to ostriches from overflights. Appellants' Br. at 32. However, as the U.S. Air Force points out, this testimony was given by someone who lived in the vicinity of Cannon Air Force Base, not Holloman, and there is no indication any of the affected landowners around Holloman have ostriches. We conclude that the EIS's discussion of livestock impacts was sufficient. 53
54 Appellants point to a 2002 Tornado crash near Alamagordo, which sparked a forest fire, as an indication that the EIS was inadequate for failing to discuss the environmental and economic impacts of such a fire. Appellants suggest that a supplemental EIS was needed to address these impacts in light of the dry weather predicted for 2003. We believe the U.S. Air Force adequately addressed the risk of accident in its EIS and was not required to prepare a supplemental EIS under these circumstances. The EIS acknowledged the risk of accident, described its methodology for calculating this risk, and described the results of these calculations. The fact that an accident has since occurred does not indicate that the EIS's analysis was flawed, nor does it make necessary further discussion of the secondary effects of such an accident in a supplemental EIS. Even as to impacts that are ... reasonably foreseeable and merit inclusion [in an EIS], the []EIS need only furnish such information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project. Utahns for Better Transp., 305 F.3d at 1176. The EIS acknowledges that fire and environmental contamination may result from a crash and that this possibility is more likely for crashes in highly vegetated areas during a hot, dry summer. Appellees' Supp.App. at 111. Having concluded that the risk of accident was relatively low, it was not required to describe the potential consequences of a resulting fire in further detail.