Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
their cumulative impacts. Even if the fire-lines had only a small impact, “[cjumula-tive impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 40 C.F.R. 1508.7 Further, the Forest Service fails to explain how such post-fire “rehabilitation” could eliminate the effects from the construction and existence of the fire-lines. As plaintiffs expert demonstrated, and the Forest Service does not dispute, “[flirelines cause significant and persistent reductions in soil productivity via elevated erosion, compaction and the removal of all organic matter, which is critical to soil productivity.” (See AR 8772 [Rhodes Declaration] ¶ 18.) Such significant effects must be disclosed within the EIS. See City of Carmel, 123 F.3d at 1160 . The Forest Service also asserts that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding supplemental eis not necessary for sitespecific infestation and reforestation program where impacts of site specific program were the same as those considered in the programmatic eis
B. holding that a cumulative impacts analysis was insufficient where the agency had examined single projects in isolation because there were several foreseeable similar projects in a geographical region that added to the cumulative impacts
C. holding supplemental eis not necessary for sitespecific infestation and reforestation program where impacts of sitespecific program were the same as those considered in the programmatic eis
D. holding agency had burden to describe other area projects and detail the cumulative impacts of these projects
E. holding that eis must provide a useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past present and future projects
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.