With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". into the “migration corridor.” MMS acknowledges this possibility, but then comes to the inexplicable conclusion that this project can proceed without other modifications. The agency further states that “ideally, drilling and high resolution seismic activity would not deflect whales until ... whalers had harvested whales” but does not give any rationale explaining why it expects this ideal scenario will occur. The EA itself admits that “it is unknown what the increased level of effect of two proposed drillships and associated icebreakers and other attendant vessels would be.” Without examining the possible level of disruption to the Inupiat harvest of bow-head whales, MMS offers only “conclusory assertions” that impacts will not be significant. See Ocean Advocates, 402 F.3d at 864-66 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Petitioners correctly posit that

A: holding that the need to look to the cba to determine the plaintiffs rate of pay did not trigger preemption
B: holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial
C: holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext was insufficient because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the employer did not honestly believe its proffered reasons for its action
D: holding that army corps of engineers failed to take hard look where its assessment included only conclusory assertions and did not discuss contrary evidence
D.