Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with its NEPA obligations when implementing a land-use program.” Id. We have recently confirmed that these holdings apply at least to areas of greater than 5,000 acres, even if they have not previously been inventoried for wilderness consideration, and also to inventoried areas of under 5,000 acres. Lands Council v. Martin, 479 F.3d 636, 640 (9th Cir.2007). Because “[r]oadless areas ... also help conserve some of the last unspoiled wilderness in our country,” Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1121 (9th Cir.2002), there is no reason to suppose that such characteristics, when they appear on BLM land, rather than on Forest Service land, do not implicate the planning process. They therefore also implicate NEPA. An ater, 173 F.3d 1033, , 174 F.3d 180, 187 (4th Cir.1999) ; Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 631 (6th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a rod to be final agency action
B. holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action
C. holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action
D. holding that it appears wellestablished that a final eis or the rod issued thereon constitute the final agency action for purposes of the apa and collecting cases
E. holding that the designation of the rod as final agency action under the apa is generally recognized
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.