Task: Text Completion
Input (English): Basin] operations.”. Ex. 21 to Pis.’ Schneider Decl. at 1 (April 8, 2003 letter to J.K. Towner of FWS from S. Adams of the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee (“MRNRC”), a collection of relevant wildlife agencies from both Upper and Lower Basin states on the Missouri River ); see also Ex. 20, 23-27 (letters from each of the individual agencies of the MRNRC, restating that committee’s position). Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prove that the 2003 Supplemental BiOp is arbitrary and capricious given FWS’ failure to “satisfactorily explain” why it has abandoned the 2000 BiOp’s extensively peer-reviewed and approved requirement for implementing summer low flow no later than 2003. See National Audubon Society v. Hester, 801 F.2d 405, 408 (D.C.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). d. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Establish that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action (B) holding that the mere allegation of arbitrary and capricious action on defendants part absent a direct and pointed attack on the evidentiary basis of the agencys action is insufficient to warrant a judicial determination of wrongful agency action (C) holding that it was not arbitrary and capricious for an agency to change course when one of its basic assumptions in earlier rulemaking was contradicted by new data (D) holding that any alteration to agency action can be held arbitrary and capricious if the agency does not satisfactorily explain its reason for the alteration (E) holding that the power of any administrative agency to reconsider its final decision exists only where the statutory provisions creating the agency indicate a legislative intent to permit the agency to carry into effect such power
Output (English): (D)