- 5 - 
FERDINAND J. MACK 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
SUITE 1CXJ 
OLD TOWN CENTER 
17 WEST JEFFERSON 8T. 
ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 
20850 
prepared on overall policy, the court stated, in a footnote: 
"We are of the view that upon consideration 
of the overall timber management policy of 
the Forest Service in an EIS complying with 
NEPA, each administrative action taken 
pursuant to that policy will not require a 
separate impact statement. In other words, 
if the environmental effects of timber cutting 
are considered in the overall EIS, an individual 
EIS for each timber sale would not be required, 
absent a material change in circumstances or a 
departure from the policy covered in the overall 
EIS." 498 F 2d 1323, Footnote 29 
It must be borne out that in the present case, as opposed 
to MPIRG v Butz, supra, the environmental effects are largely unknown, 
and potentially lethal. It is precisely because they are unknown, that 
the Risk Assessment Studies are being conducted. 
East Tennessee Energy Group Inc. v Seamans, 7 ERC 2144, 
likewise relied upon by the defendants, is not supportive of their position. 
There the plaintiffs sought to compel the Energy Research and Development 
Administration to withdraw a legislative proposal for appropriations, 
pending compliance with NEPA. The legislation was already moving 
through Congress and involved previous legislation, and many other 
complexities of the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program. 
A case not cited by defendants is National Resources Defense 
Council v Morton, 388 F Supp 829. There the Bureau of Land Management 
prepared a draft programmatic statement on its entire livestock grazing 
program. Plaintiffs asked for and received, detailed individual statements 
prepared on an appropriate district or geographic level, to assess the 
actual impact of the issuance of the Federal grazing permits on local 
environments, the court distinguishing the case from NRDC v TVA, Supra. 
[Appendix C — 129] 
301 270-2230 
