Opinion ID: 780570
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: standard of review

Text: 70 Review of agency action to determine its conformity with NEPA and the CAA provisions at issue is governed by the judicial review provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. See Hells Canyon Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., 227 F.3d 1170, 1176-77 (9th Cir.2000) (NEPA); City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261, 269 (D.C.Cir.2002) (CAA); see also City of S. Pasadena v. Slater, 56 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1134-35 (C.D.Cal.1999) (CAA review uses same standard as NEPA review). The reviewing court must determine that agency actions are not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In considering whether an agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, a court must determine whether the agency articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Ariz. Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. United States Fish & Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir.2001). Furthermore, courts must carefully review the record to `ensure that agency decisions are founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors,' id. (quoting Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989)), and may not `rubber-stamp ... administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute,' id. (quoting NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291-92, 85 S.Ct. 980, 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965)) (omission in original). 71 In the context of the procedural environmental requirements imposed by NEPA and CAA, [t]he arbitrary and capricious standard requires a court to ensure that an agency has taken the requisite hard look at the environmental consequences of its proposed action, carefully reviewing the record to ascertain whether the agency decision is founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors. Wetlands Action Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 41, 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001). A reviewing court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but rather must `simply ... ensure that[the agency] has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions.' Am. Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Ass'n of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158, 1183 (9th Cir.1997)). This means that we must defer to an agency's decision that is fully informed and well-considered, Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), but need not forgive a `clear error of judgment,' id. (citing Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851), or credit conclusions that do not have a basis in fact, Ariz. Cattle, 273 F.3d at 1236.