human environment which was not already considered in the original EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c); Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1859, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); Cronin, 919 F.2d at 449; Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir.1990); Hickory Neighborhood Defense League v. Skinner, 893 F.2d 58, 63 (4th Cir.1990) (quoting Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 816 F.2d 205, 210 (5th Cir.1987)); and Roberts t a supplemental EIS for a site-specific timber sale was not required where programmatic EIS considered effect of timber sales on northern spotted owl and site-specific project would not have an effect on owl habitat not already considered in the programmatic EIS); and Texas v. United States Forest Service, 654 F.Supp. at 297-98 (<HOLDING>). Under the facts of this case, a programmatic
holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action holding that eis must provide a useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past present and future projects holding after consideration of a single significance factor that an eis was required 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 holding that the implementation of a training program as opposed to the adoption of the program is not a discretionary function under the state tort liability act