Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Creek sub-watershed; and may significantly impact other wildlife. In contrast, the Forest Service asserts that its finding of no significant impact was reasonable because “the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service biological analyses demonstrate that impacts to wildlife, including the northern spotted owl ... will not be significant. Watershed analysis demonstrates that none of the watersheds in the project area will be significantly affected.” (Defi’s Mem. In Supp. Of Mot. For Summ. J. and in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. For Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 10.) 1. Northern Spotted Owl The EA concludes that the project “will affect, is likely to adversely affect” the Northern Spotted Owl. (EA at 58, AR 417.) Standing alone, this suggests the need for an EIS. Ocean Advocates, 361 F.3d at 1125 . The Forest Service concludes however, that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the presence of one intensity factor may be sufficient to deem the action significant in certain circumstances
B. recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law
C. holding that in certain circumstances fraud can be prosecuted under the statute
D. holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of  one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others
E. holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.