for determining whether an action will be significant. See supra. One such factor is “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.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a). Here, the Forest Service concluded that the project “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” the NSO, due to direct owl disturbance and disruption of breeding, as well as destruction and degradation and increased fragmentation of NSO habitat (much of which is designated NSO critical habitat and/or within existing NSO activity centers). (See EA at 26-32, AR 385-391.) At a minimum, this finding is an important factor supporting the need for an EIS. See also Ocean Advocates, 361 F.3d at 1125 (<HOLDING>). Second, the Forest Service’s conclusion that
recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of  one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others holding that in certain circumstances fraud can be prosecuted under the statute holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others holding that the presence of one intensity factor may be sufficient to deem the action significant in certain circumstances