risk of harm to the environment and then perform its studies.... This approach has the process exactly backwards.”). Monitoring may serve to confirm the appropriateness of a mitigation measure, but that does not make it an adequate mitigation measure in itself. See EPIC, 451 F.3d at 1015-16. After considering the gaps in the multi-sale EIS and the EA, we conclude that the agency failed to take a “hard look” under NEPA because it did not provide a well-reasoned analysis of site-specific impacts to the endangered bowhead whale population. The tiered OCSLA process allows general analysis at the lease-sale stage, but the agency must then consider site-specific impacts before approving an individual exploration plan. See Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 784 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Vill. of False Pass v. Watt, 565 F.Supp.
holding that agency could not rely on vague prior programmatic statements but needed to consider sitespecific impacts when a critical decision has been made to act on a lease sale holding that statements made prior to signing of lease with integration clause were not actionable in fraudulent misrepresentation holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction holding an insurer has a right to rely on statements made in an insurance application holding if a party has access to information that would have led to the true facts that party has no right to rely on a prior false representation