(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b). Some courts have found that “[t]he presence of one or more of these factors should result in an agency decision to prepare an EIS.” Pub. Citizen v. Dep’t of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002, 1023 (9th Cir.2003) (“If agency’s action is environmentally ‘significant’ according to any of these criteria [set forth in 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b) ], then DOT erred in failing to prepare an EIS.”); see also Anderson v. Evans, 314 F.3d 1006, 1021 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Andrus, 825
holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment holding that an eis was required to evaluate the environmental consequences of the decision to divert water to industrial use holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis holding after consideration of a single significance factor that an eis was required