Memorandum Opinion and Order - US District Court - Northern ...

1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 1995). The EIS “insures the integrity of the agency process by forcing it toface those stubborn, difficult-to-answer objections without ignoring them or sweeping themunder the rug and serves as an environmental full disclosure so that the public can weigh aproject’s benefits against its environmental costs.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7,12 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 772 F.2d 1043,1049 (2d Cir. 1985)) (internal quotations omitted).However, because NEPA does not contain provisions to determine whether agency actioncomplies with NEPA’s necessary processes, compliance with NEPA is reviewed under the APA,5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq. (1996). 4 See Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1315 (9th Cir. 1988)(concluding that “NEPA itself authorizes no private right of action, . . . [b]ut the APA providesfor judicial review of agency action” under § 702 of the APA). Judicial review of agency actionunder the APA requires a “thorough, probing, in-depth review” of the AR to determine “whetherthe decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been aclear error of judgment.” ITT Fed. Servs. Corp. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 174, 184 (Fed. Cl.1999).4Hereinafter cited as “APA § . . .”18