ideal, MMS’s “assumption” that there would not be an oil spill was supplemented with comprehensive studies on the likelihood and impact of such an event. Accordingly, the agency did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in its assessment of the potential effects of an oil spill from this project. C. Necessity of a Revised EA or an EIS MMS has violated NEPA by failing to take a “hard look” at the impacts of Shell’s proposal on bowhead whales and Inupiat subsistence activities. MMS has not provided a convincing statement of reasons to justify its decision not to complete an EIS. See Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1211. Moreover, several of the regulatory significance criteria are triggered here. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27; Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 843 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Shell’s project is located in an increasingly
holding that an agencys decision not to prepare an eis was unreasonable because record demonstrated that four of the regulatory factors were implicated recognizing that an agencys decision to terminate an employee is presumed correct holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable holding that the intervening decision of oregon natural undercut eight circuit precedent applying the reasonableness standard with respect review of an agencys decision to forego preparation of an original eis holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis