7 
In Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. 
Butz , 498 F. 2d 1314, 1323 n.29 (8th Cir. 1974), the court 
noted that upon preparation of an overall management plan 
for a particular national forest area, individual impact 
statements on each timber sale or other management activity 
would not be required. 
Three decisions by this district court have also 
strongly endorsed the concept of programmatic impact state- 
ments instead of individual impact statements. 
First, in Fund for the Animals v. Frizzell , 402 
F.Supp. 35 (D. D.C., 1975), aff'd, 530 r.2d 982, 988 n.15 
(D.C. Cir. 1976), plaintiff sought an injunction against 
waterfowl hunting regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
where the Service had prepared a comprehensive statement on 
its overall sport hunting program. The injunction was denied, 
in part because Interior had prepared a programmatic impact 
statement concerning overall sport hunting of migratory birds. 
402 F.Supp. at 37. 
Second, in District 1 - Marine Engineers v. Coleman , 
Civil Action No. 75-1208 (D. D.C. 1975), plaintiffs sought 
impact statements on certification of individual tankers where 
the Coast Guard had prepared an impact statement on environmental 
regulations which controlled the environmental standards of 
individual tankers. In rejecting this claim, the court held 
that separate impact statements were not needed (si. op. at 7, 
emphasis added) : 
NEPA may be satisfied when an agency 
develops an impact statement for an entire 
program. CEQ Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. 
§1500. 6 (a) (1974) . Thus, the Coast Guard's 
EIS covers regulations which will govern 
all oil tankers such as the ones at issue 
here. It would in this Court's opinion , 
[Appendix C — 115] 
