reveals the data and assumptions upon which a computer model is based, allows and considers public comment on the use or results of the model, and ensures that the ultimate decision rests with the agency, not the computer model, then the agency use of a computer model to assist in decision making is not arbitrary and capricious. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1391 (D.C.Cir.1985) (quoting Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 334-35 (D.C.Cir.1981)). See also Connecticut v. E.P.A, 696 F.2d 147, 158-59 (2d Cir.1982) (agency’s use of computer model not arbitrary or capricious if the agency recognized the limitations of the computer model and explained the agency decision). Cf. Residents in Protest — I-S5E v. Dole, 583 F.Supp. 653, 663-64 (D.Minn.1984) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that the Forest Service in
holding that results of two computer models provided the agency with information sufficient under nepa to understand the environmental impact of carbon dioxide from an interstate highway and to make an informed decision holding that even though an executive order mandating agency consideration of environmental justice concerns created no private right of action for an agencys failure to comply with that mandate the court would review the agencys action as an exercise of discretion under the apa and nepa holding that birdwatchers interest in preventing adverse environmental effects from agency action fell squarely within the zone of interests of nepa holding that in addition to providing crucial information to the agency nepa also guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decision making process and the implementation of that decision this larger audience includes  the public which receives the assurance that the agency has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process as well as the opportunity to comment holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise  any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency