This case arises out of Plaintiffs-Appellants Tri-Valley CAREs’, Marylia Turner’s, and Janis Kate Turner’s (collec- tively, Tri-Valley CAREs) second challenge to the sufficiency of the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Environ- mental Assessment (EA) of a prospective “biosafety level-3” (BSL-3) facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Labora- tory (LLNL). In an earlier round of litigation, the Court upheld all aspects of the DOE’s original EA, except for its failure to consider the impact of a possible terrorist attack. Following a remand, on September 30, 2009, the district court entered summary judgment in the DOE’s favor on the grounds that it had sufficiently revised its Final Revised Environmental Assessment (FREA) to adequately consider the environmental impact of an intentional terrorist attack on the BSL-3 facility at LLNL. On November 18, 2010, Tri-Valley CAREs timely appealed the district court’s decision, petitioning us to require the DOE to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or, in the alternative, to revise its EA, in light of the allegations set forth in its original complaint, to determine whether an EIS is required. The Appeals Court ruled: "We hold that the DOE took the requisite “hard look” at the environmental impact of an intentional terrorist attack in the manner required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 635 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011). We further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion1186 TRI-VALLEY CARES v. U.S. DOE in denying Tri-Valley CAREs’ motion to supplement the record. Accordingly, we affirm."