.784 F.Supp. at 603. When plaintiffs urge a supplemental EIS should be conducted based on effects already adequately considered by the original EIS, a supplemental EIS is not required. Cronin, 919 F.2d at 449; Headwaters, Inc., 914 F.2d at 1178; Hickory Neighborhood Defense League, 893 F.2d at 63; and Texas v. United States Forest Serv., 654 F.Supp. 296, 298 (S.D.Tex.1987). The burden is on the plaintiff to show that grounds exist requiring the preparation of an EIS. Robertson, 784 F.Supp. at 606. In Robertson, the district court held that when the timber cutting proposed in a site-specific project did not differ significantly from the timber cutting anticipated and evaluated in the programmatic EIS, no supplemental site-specific EIS was required. Id. See also Cronin, 919 F.2d at 449 (<HOLDING>); Headwaters, Inc., 914 F.2d at 1180 (holding
holding that plaintiffs statistics did not shed any light on the legally relevant issue because they did not indicate the group of applicants who were interviewed or even the group of applicants found qualified or the group of all applicants holding supplemental eis not necessary for sitespecific timber sale where programmatic eis considered effects of both clearcutting and group selection and sitespecific project authorized group selection holding that a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case need show only that he is a member of a protected group and whites are a protected group under title vii recognizing women as a distinct group holding that the forum selection clause at issue encompassed both contract and tort claims