Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is essential.”) As fuel break maintenance is necessary and foreseeable, the effects of such maintenance must be addressed within the EIS. See Save the Yaak Committee v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 720 (9th Cir.1988) (“[A]n EIS must cover subsequent phase of development when ‘[t]he dependency is such that it would be irrational, or at least unwise, to undertake the first phase, if subsequent phases were not also undertaken.’ ”); Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d 1208, 1214-15 (9th Cir.1998) (requiring EIS to consider five related timber sales where actions part of one recovery strategy and were reasonably foreseeable); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (requiring that EIS consider reasonably foreseeable future actions); Cf. Wetlands Action Network v. United States Army Corps, 222 F.3d 1105, 1119 (9th Cir.2000) . Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant had not committed tort because its agents collateral comment had been made in good faith
B. holding eis did not need to consider subsequent phases of project where impractical to do so because subsequent phases had not received approval and many planning decisions had not been made
C. holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion
D. holding that plaintiffs who had been served and received responses to interrogatories on personal jurisdiction had had such a fair opportunity
E. holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.