are distributed, but the cumulative effect of “highgrading” on each type of land may determine whether species will retain viable, well-distributed populations in the Tongass. Cf. Resources Ltd., 35 F.3d at 1306 (“[O]ne does not need control over private land to be able to assess the impact that activities on private land may have in the Forest.”). At least in the particular circumstances of this case, the cumulative impacts on wildlife viability from continued “highgrading” by non-federal entities, as well as by the Forest Service to the extent permissible under NFMA, ought to be considered in a single, programmatic EIS. See City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1312-13 (9th Cir.1990); see also LaFlamme v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm., 852 F.2d 389, 401-02 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). A cumulative effects analysis in a
holding agency had burden to describe other area projects and detail the cumulative impacts of these projects holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error holding that eis must provide a useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past present and future projects 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 holding that juror access to several exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was not prejudicial as they were cumulative of trial testimony