C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(h). “NEPA requires that federal agencies take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental effects of their planned action and should apply a ‘rule of reason’ as to whether a supplemental EA is required.” Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest Service, 926 F.Supp. 914, 916-17 (D.Ariz.1994)(citing Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851). The “rule of reason turns on the value of the new information to the still pending decision making process.” Id. (quoting Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851). “The Forest Service’s decision to forego an SEIS should not be set aside unless it was arbitrary or capricious.” Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 559 (9th Cir.2000). See also Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The Court “must consider whether the decision
holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict holding that the standard for supplementing an ea is the same as for an eis holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss holding the standard for obtaining a coa is the same as for a cpc