Task: Text Completion
Input (English): are minimal is not arbitrary and capricious. 2. Reliance on NMFS’s BiOp NEDC contends that the Corps’ reliance on NMF S’s BiOp caused its cumulative impacts analysis to be arbitrary and capricious and that the Corps’ EA falls short of the “quantified or detailed information” that is necessary for a cumulative impact analysis. Bark v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 643 F.Supp.2d 1214, 1224 (D.Or.2009) (citations omitted). First, NEDC argues that the BiOp itself is flawed. As I have already determined that the BiOp was proper under Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, this argument needs no further analysis. Second, NEDC contends that the BiOp is not a NEPA document, therefore the Corps may not tier to it as a substitute for the Corps’ own analysis. See League of Wilderness Defenders, 549 F.3d at 1219 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). It was proper for the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that nsf must comply with procedural requirements of nepa when considering incineration of food waste in antarctica because 1 the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply because nepa is designed to regulate conduct occurring within the territory of the united states 2 the united states exercises legislative control over antarctica 3 any concerns about nepa interference with foreign policy were overstated because when foreign policy interests outweighed benefits of nepa compliance nepas requirements must yield and 4 broad language of the statute supports broad application of nepa requirements (B) holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist (C) recognizing that nepa merely prohibits uninformed  rather than unwise agency action (D) holding that an agency carries its burden of proof by providing affidavits to explain why documents are subject to an exemption (E) holding that an agency may only tier to documents subject to nepa review and citing cases
Output (English): (E)