Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "702452",
    "label": "Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [1]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/702452"
}

{
    "id": "702452",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/702452",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [1]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/702452",
    "identifierLocal": "29163-008",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)",
        "John Sununu Issues Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-cos/sununu_issues_580478/41-bpr-whcos-sununu-iss-29163-008.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-cos/sununu_issues_580478/41-bpr-whcos-sununu-iss-29163-008.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-cos/sununu_issues_580478/41-bpr-whcos-sununu-iss-29163-008.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/702452",
    "naId": 702452,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/bush/gb-cos/sununu_issues_580478/41-bpr-whcos-sununu-iss-29163-008.pdf",
    "mediaId": "24ea3b9dfea5be9d",
    "ocrText": "Originally Processed With FOIA(s):\nFOIA Number:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nS\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the George Bush Presidential\nLibrary Staff.\nRecord Group/Collection:\nGeorge H.W. Bush Presidential Records\nCollection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nOA/ID Number:\n29163\nFolder ID Number:\n29163-008\nFolder Title:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nG\n15\n25\n3\n1\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nTuesday, June 26, 1990\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nI have often stated my belief that development of oil and gas\non the outer continental shelf (OCS) should occur in an\nenvironmentally sound manner\nI have received the report of the interagency OCS Task Force\non Leasing and Development off the coasts of Florida and\nCalifornia, and have accepted its recommendation that further\nsteps to protect the environment are needed.\nToday, I am announcing my support for a moratorium on oil and\ngas leasing and development in Sale Area 116, Part II, off\nthe coast of Florida, Sale Area 91 off the coast of northern\nCalifornia, Sale Area 119 off the coast of central\nCalifornia, and the vast majority of Sale Area 95 off the\ncoast of southern California, until after the year 2000.\nThe combined effect of these decisions is that the coast of\nsouthwest Florida and more than 99 percent of the California\ncoast will be off limits to oil and gas leasing and\ndevelopment until after the year 2000.\nOnly those areas which are in close proximity to existing oil\nand gas development in Federal and state waters, comprising\nless than 1% of the tracts off the California coast, may be\navailable before then. These areas, concentrated in the\nSanta Maria Basin and the Santa Barbara Channel, will not be\navailable for leasing in any event until 1996 -- and then\nonly if the further studies for which I am calling in\nresponse to the report of the National Academy of Sciences\nsatisfactorily address concerns related to these tracts.\nI am also approving a proposal that would establish a\nNational Marine Sanctuary in California's Monterey Bay and\nprovide for a permanent ban on oil and gas development in the\nsanctuary, and I am asking the Secretary of the Interior to\nbegin a process that may lead to the buyback and cancellation\nof existing leases in Sale Area 116, Part II, off southwest\nFlorida.\nIn addition, I am directing the Secretary of the Interior to\ndelay leasing and development in several other areas where\nquestions have been raised about the resource potential and\nthe environmental implications of development. For Sale Area\n132 off the coasts of Washington and Oregon, I am accepting\nthe recommendation of the Secretary that further leasing and\ndevelopment activity be deferred until a series of\nenvironmental studies are completed, and directing that no\n-2-\nsuch activity take place until after the year 2000. I am\nalso cancelling Lease Sale 96, in the Georges Bank area of\nthe North Atlantic, and directing that no leasing and\ndevelopment activity take place in this area until after the\nyear 2000. This will allow time for additional studies to\ndetermine the resource potential of the area and address the\nenvironmental and scientific concerns which have been raised.\nFinally, I am today directing the Secretary to take several\nsteps to improve the OCS program and respond to several of\nthe concerns expressed by the Task Force. My goal is to\ncreate a much more carefully targeted OCS program -- one that\nis responsive to local concerns, to environmental concerns,\nand to the need to develop prudently our nation's domestic\nenergy resources. Although I have today taken these strong\nsteps to protect our environment, I continue to believe that\nthere are significant offshore areas where we can and must go\nforward with resource development.\nWhile I believe that a leaner OCS program will ultimately be\nmore effective, Americans must recognize that the OCS program\nis a vital source of fuel for our growing economy. My desire\nis to achieve a balance between the need to provide energy\nfor the American people and the need to protect unique and\nsensitive coastal and marine environments.\n#\n#\n#\n#\nDRAFT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 14, 1990\nMEMORANDUM FOR JIM CICCONI\nFROM:\nBARRY MCBEE BRN\nSUBJECT:\nOCS Fact Sheet\nAttached is a draft of a fact sheet that could be used in\nconnection with the announcement of the President's decisions on\nthe OCS Task Force and the future of the OCS program. It\nreflects Bob Grady's comments.\nOne issue that must be decided is whether all of the actions\nembodied in the decision memo prepared for the President should\nbe announced by the President or whether some should be left to\nSecretary Lujan. Specifically, the two most significant items\nare Sale 96 off New England (the George's Bank area) and the\nproposed sale off Washington and Oregon that has been studied by\nan Interior Department/Washington/Oregon task force. Grady feels\nthat all of the announcements should be made from the White\nHouse, while I think there are valid arguments to give some of\nthe announcements to Lujan.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFACT SHEET\nPRESIDENTIAL DECISIONS CONCERNING OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT\nON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF\nThe President today announced a series of decisions related to\noil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).\nThe decisions are intended both to respond to the report of his\ninteragency Task Force on Leasing and Development of the OCS and\nto provide a general direction for the OCS program in the future.\nThe President believes that the nation needs to find a balance\nbetween development of important domestic energy resources and\nprotection of the environment in sensitive areas.\nDecisions by the President on Three Pending Sales\nDecision for California Sales\nO\nCancel all sales scheduled for 1990, 1991 and 1992\noffshore California, including Sale 91 off the coast of\nnorthern California and Sale 95 off the coast of\nsouthern California.\nConduct additional oceanographic and socioeconomic\nstudies as recommended by the National Academy of\nSciences in its review of the information available for\ndecision-making, as requested by the Task Force, which\nshould take 3 to 4 years.\nExclude more than 99 percent of the tracts (including\nall of the Sale 91 area and all of the Sale 95 area\nsouth of the Santa Barbara Channel) off California from\nconsideration for any lease sale until after the year\n2000. The Interior Department has identified 87 tracts\noff the coast of southern California within the Sale 95\narea that have high resource potential. The tracts\nconfined\nto\nwhich are shown on the attached map are located in the\nSanta Maria Basin and Santa Barbara Channel, where oil\nand gas development is currently underway, and comprise\napproximatel 0.7 percent of all of the tracts off\nCalifornia. These tracts, constituting approximately\n498,000 acres, represent .67 percent of the 74 million\ntotal acres off California that could be leased and\n1.63 percent of the 30.5 million acres in the Southern\nCalifornia Planning Area. They will not be available\nfor possible leasing until after January 1, 1996 and\nafter completion of the additional studies and then\nonly if development appears viable based on the guiding\nprinciples outlined below and the results of the\nstudies.\nDecision for Florida\nCancel Sale 116, Part II and exclude the area from\nconsideration for any lease sale until after the year\n2000. Any development after the year 2000 would be\npursued only if it appears viable, based on the guiding\nprinciples outlined below and the results of additional\nstudies.\nConduct additional oceanographic, ecological and\nsocioeconomic studies as recommended by the National\nAcademy of Sciences in its review, which should be\ncompleted within 5 to 6 years.\nBegin cancellation of existing leases off Florida and\ninitiate discussions with the State of Florida for its\nparticipation in a joint federal-state buy-back of the\nleases.\nGuiding Principles for the President's Decision\nIn arriving at his decisions, and as a template for decisions on\nfuture OCS development, the President considered the following\nprinciples:\n(1) Adequacy of Information and Analysis -- Adequate\nscientific and technical information regarding the resource\npotential of each area considered for leasing and the\nenvironmental, social and economic effects of development\nmust be available and subjected to rigorous scrutiny before\ndecisions are made. Obtaining that data is the highest\npriority. No activity should take place in any area without\nsuch information and analysis.\n(2) Environmental Sensitivity -- It must be recognized\nthat there are certain areas off our coasts that represent\nirreplaceable natural resources. In those areas even the\nsmall risks posed by oil and gas development may be too\ngreat. In other areas where science and experience and new\nrecovery technologies show development may be safe,\ndevelopment will be considered.\n(3) Resource Potential -- Priority for development must\nbe given to those areas which have the greatest resource\npotential. Given the inexact nature of resource estimation,\nparticularly offshore, priority should be given to those\nareas where earlier development has proven the existence of\neconomically recoverable reserves. There may also be other\nundeveloped areas where the likelihood of significant\nresources, as demonstrated by the interest of the oil and\ngas industry, can justify possible development.\n(4) Energy Requirements -- The requirements of our\nnation's economy for energy and the overall costs and\nbenefits of various sources of energy must be considered in\ndeciding whether to develop oil and gas offshore. The level\nof petroleum imports, which has been steadily increasing, is\na critical factor in this assessment. At the same time,\ngreater availability of alternative energy sources and\nsavings from increased energy conservation and efficiency\nmay reduce our demand for traditional energy supplies.\n(5) National Security Requirements -- The changing nature\nof circumstances may alter conclusions on what is the\nprudent course. The completion of the National Energy\nStrategy and our experience with its implementation may lead\nto a different approach to future sales. External events,\nsuch as another oil embargo, might also lead to a\nreevaluation of the entire OCS program. Because of this all\ndecisions regarding OCS development must be subject to a\nnational security exemption -- in the event the President\ndetermines that national security requires development in\nthese areas, he will have the ability to direct the Interior\nDepartment to open the areas for development.\nThe need to develop adequate information, particularly that\nneeded to meet the inadequacies identified by the NAS, is an\nessential factor in calling for further studies and cancellation\nof the pending sales. The unique character of the sale 116 area\noff southwest Florida, which contains our nation's only mangrove-\ncoral reef ecosystem and is a gateway for the precious Everglades\nand deserves special protection, tilts the balance toward longer-\nterm protection. The presence of successful drilling operations\nand known resources off certain areas of southern California\nweighs toward allowing continued development at an earlier time,\nassuming scientific and environmental uncertainties can be\nresolved.\nOther Actions by the President\nThe President has also directed that certain other actions be\ntaken with respect to pending decisions that would affect the\nOuter Continental Shelf and offshore oil and gas development.\nSale 119 and Monterey Bay Sanctuary\nThe Task Force consideration of development off northern and\nsouthern California was accompanied by strong concern about\nthe prospect of development off central California and the\nfate of Sale 119. Sale 119, originally scheduled for March\n1991, covers an area stretching from San Francisco southward\nto the northern tip of Monterey Bay. This area includes\nunique coastal and marine resources and the Monterey Bay\nNational Marine Sanctuary, which has been proposed by the\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in\nresponse to a 1988 Congressional mandate; the proposed\nsanctuary would cover approximately 2,200 square miles.\nNOAA has also proposed regulations to prohibit all oil and\ngas exploration and development activities within the\nsanctuary, which was not required by Congress. Like the\narea off southwest Florida, this area contains nationally\nsignificant, environmentally sensitive resources, including\nthe largest breeding ground for marine mammals in the lower\n48 states.\nThe President is directing Secretary Lujan and Administrator\nKnauss to take the following actions:\nCancel Sale 119 and adopt the sanctuary proposed by the\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.\nPermanently prohibit all oil and gas activities within\nthe sanctuary.\nAllow no development in the Sale 119 area outside the\nsanctuary until after the year 2000. At that time the\nguiding principles outlined above will be applied to\ndetermine the viability of development of the area.\nGeneral Recommendations of Task Force\nAs a result of its deliberations, the Task Force also made\nthree general recommendations for actions related to OCS\ndevelopment and overall environmental protection. The\nPresident today adopted all of those recommendations:\nAir quality controls should be adopted for oil and gas\ndevelopment offshore California that are substantially\nthe same as those applied onshore. This is consistent\nwith the position taken by the Administration in Clean\nAir Act negotiations with the Senate.\nImmediate steps should be taken to improve the ability\nof industry and the federal government to respond to\noil spills offshore, regardless of their source.\nFederal agencies should develop a plan to reduce the\npossibility of oil spills offshore from whatever\nsource, including and especially from tanker traffic.\nThis plan should include moving tanker routes further\naway from sensitive areas near the Florida Keys and the\nEverglades, as previously proposed.\nRestructuring of OCS Program\nThe President believes that in order to strike the necessary\nbalance between development of domestic energy resources and\nprotection of our precious environment, certain revisions to\nthe OCS program will be required. The program must be:\ntargeted much more carefully toward areas with truly\npromising resource potential;\nbuttressed by information adequate to ensure that oil\nand gas development proceeds in an environmentally\nsound manner; and\nsensitive to the concerns and needs of local areas\naffected by offshore development.\nThese requirements are consistent with the guiding\nprinciples outlined above on which the President relied in\nmaking his decisions today.\nAccordingly, the President today directed the Secretary of\nthe Interior to take the following three actions that will\nimprove the overall OCS program:\nImmediately undertake a program to improve the\ninformation needed to make decisions on OCS\ndevelopment. This program will include conducting the\nstudies identified by the National Academy of Sciences\nand studies to explore new technologies to alleviate\nthe risks of oil spills from OCS platforms and new oil\nand gas drilling technologies, such as submersible\ndrilling rigs.\nTarget proposed sale areas in future OCS five-year\nplans to ensure that only areas with the greatest\nresource potential and the least environmental risk are\noffered for sale. This will result in much smaller and\nmore carefully selected blocks of tracts being offered.\nDevelop within [ ] a legislative initiative [for\namendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act]\nthat will provide coastal communities directly affected\nby OCS development with a greater share of the\nfinancial benefits of new development and with more\nvoice in decision-making. In its administration of the\nOCS program, the Interior Department has long heard\nconcerns raised by coastal communities about the risks\nto their shorelines and the limited role they play in\nmaking decisions about OCS development. The Interior\nDepartment has also noted the inequity present in the\ncurrent scheme of revenue allocation from OCS\ndevelopment -- states receive 100 percent of revenues\nfrom leases within three miles of shore, revenues from\nleases between three and twelve miles of shore are\ndivided 73 percent to the federal government and 27\npercent to the states, and revenues from leases twelve\nmiles or further offshore go 100 percent to the federal\ngovernment, but the coastal communities most directly\naffected by development are not guaranteed any of the\nstate revenues.\nBackground on Sales\nSale 91\nThe Sale 91 area contains approximately 1.1 million acres\nand lies offshore Mendocino and Humboldt Counties in\nnorthern California, primarily in two areas off Eureka and\nfrom south of Cape Mendocino to south of Point Arena. It is\nwithin the Northern California Planning Area, which\nstretches from the California/Oregon border to the\nSonoma/Mendocino County lines. There is currently no oil\nand gas production within this planning area. The Minerals\nManagement Service (which is responsible for the OCS program\nwithin the Interior Department) estimates that there are\nbetween 210 million and 1.54 billion barrels of crude oil\nand approximately 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in\nthe Northern California Planning Area and between [ ] and\n[ ] barrels of oil and approximately [ ] cubic feet of\nnatural gas in the Sale 91 area. Congress imposed a\nmoratorium prohibiting leasing in the Northern California\nPlanning Area as part of the Interior Department's FY 1990\nappropriations bill.\nSale 95\nThe Sale 95 area contains approximately 6.7 million acres\nand lies offshore from the northern border of San Luis\nObispo County to the U.S./Mexico border. It is within the\nSouthern California Planning Area, which extends from the\nnorthern border of San Luis Obispo County to the U.S./Mexico\nborder. Oil and gas production is currently taking place in\nthe Southern California Planning Area in the Santa Maria\nBasin and Santa Barbara Channel. There are 135 active\nfederal leases in the area, producing approximately 90,000\nbarrels of crude oil and 95 million cubic feet of natural\ngas daily from 22 platforms. In addition, there are 10\nplatforms and four artificial islands in the area that\nsupport production facilities within state waters, which\nextend from the shore out three miles. The Minerals\nManagement Service estimates that there are between 610\nmillion and 2.23 billion barrels of crude oil and\napproximately 3.01 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the\nSouthern California Planning Area and between [ ] and [ ]\nbarrels of oil and approximately [ ] cubic feet of natural\ngas in the Sale 95 area.\nSale 116, Part II\nThe area of Sale 116, Part II contains approximately 14\nmillion acres, lying south of 26 degrees north latitude off\nthe southwest Florida coast off Collier, Monroe and Dade\nCounties. This area is within the southeastern portion of\nthe Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. (In 1988 the\nEastern Gulf of Mexico was divided into two parts along the\n26 degrees north latitude line.) There is no oil and gas\nproduction within the sale area, although 73 active leases\nare held within the area by ten oil and gas companies. The\nMinerals Management Service estimates that there are between\n279 million and 1.06 billion barrels of crude oil and\napproximately 110 billion cubic feet of natural gas in the\narea and between [ ] and [ ] barrels of oil and\napproximately [ ] cubic feet of gas in the Sale 116, Part\nII area.\nBackground on Task Force\nIn his February 9, 1989 budget message to Congress, the President\nimposed a moratorium on three OCS lease sales scheduled for FY\n1990 -- Sale 91 off the coast of northern California, Sale 95 off\nthe coast of southern California and Sale 116, Part II off the\ncoast of southwestern Florida -- pending a review of the\nenvironmental effects of the sales by a Cabinet-level task force.\n(The three lease sale areas are shown in the attachments.)\nThe Task Force was named on March 21, 1989. It consisted of\nInterior Secretary Manuel Lujan as Chairman, Energy Secretary\nJames Watkins, Administrator John Knauss of the National Oceanic\nand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Administrator William\nReilly of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Director of\nthe Office of Management and Budget Richard Darman. The Task\nForce conducted nine public workshops in Florida and California,\nhearing from over 1,000 witnesses, took ten field trips to sites\nin the two states, received briefings from various federal\nagencies, met twice with Members of Congress, and solicited and\nreceived over 11,000 written public comments.\nThe Task Force also commissioned a technical review from the\nNational Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding the environmental\nand other information available on which decisions could be made.\nThe NAS determined that adequate ecological, oceanographic or\nsocioeconomic information was not available to some extent for\neach of the three sale areas.\nThe Task Force delivered its report to the President on January\n3, 1990. The President met with the members of the Task Force on\nJanuary 18 and May 16.\nOne of the key findings of the Task Force based on its year of\nstudy, analysis and consultation was that \"additional time and\neffort are needed before environmental concerns can be resolved\nin a manner that provides an acceptable balance\" between the\ngoals of domestic energy development and environmental\nprotection.\nSpecifically, the Task Force found that:\nThe southwest Florida shelf comprises subtidal and\nnearshore habitats that are unique within the U.S.\ncontinental margin and provide refuge to a number of\nrare and endangered species;\nThe incremental risks of an oil spill associated with\nthe Sale 91 area off northern California are far\ngreater than those associated with the other two sales.\nInformation concerning the onshore socioeconomic\neffects of oil and gas development is particularly\nlacking for Sale 116, Part II off Florida and Sale 91.\nAdditional studies in response to the report of the\nNational Academy of Sciences are needed before the\nSecretary of the Interior makes leasing decisions in\nany of the three areas.\nBackground on OCS Program\nManagement of oil and gas found in federal waters offshore (which\ngenerally begin three miles from a state's coast and can extend\nout 200 to 300 miles) is vested in the Department of the Interior\nunder the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended.\nThe Act directs the Interior Department to:\nmake OCS resources available to meet the nation's\nenergy needs;\nprotect human, marine and coastal environments;\nensure that states and local governments have timely\naccess to information and opportunities to participate\nin OCS program planning and decision-making; and\nobtain for the federal government a fair and equitable\nreturn on resources while preserving and maintaining\nfree enterprise competition.\nThese responsibilities within the Interior Department are under\nthe purview of the Minerals Management Service, created in 1982\nto oversee the orderly development of offshore energy and mineral\nresources while safeguarding the environment. The current\ndirector of the Service is Barry Williamson.\nThe Service makes resources available by leasing federal acreage\noffshore to private companies, which explore for resources and\ncan develop and produce commercial deposits they find, subject to\ncontinuing review and permitting procedures. Environmental\nstandards are established by the Service in regulations and lease\nstipulations and enforced through review and approval of\ncompanies' exploration, development and production plans,\nincluding drilling permits, before operations can begin on a\nlease, and an offshore facility inspection program, under which\ninspectors review safety, operational and environmental\nactivities on offshore platforms. Inspectors currently oversee\n3,800 platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and 22 platforms off\nCalifornia.\nOil and gas lease sales involve a competitive sealed bid process.\nSales are scheduled in five-year planning cycles (the first of\nwhich was in 1978) developed by the Secretary of the Interior\nwith public review and comment on the draft plan. Efforts are\nmade to address concerns raised during this review process, which\nnormally takes two years. A completed plan is submitted to the\nPresident and the Congress. After the adoption of a plan,\nextensive pre-lease activities are conducted before any sales\noccur. These activities include the preparation of an\nenvironmental impact statement for each sale, with opportunities\nfor public review and comment, and submission of sale proposals\nto the governors of the affected states before final decisions\nare made. These steps generally take an additional two or more\nyears.\nThe total OCS area covers 1.4 billion acres, and is composed of\nover 260,000 tracts. Since 1954 over 118,000 (or approximately\n45 percent) of the tracts have been offered for lease; 10,115\n(3.9 percent) have been leased; 4,111 (1.6 percent) have been\ndrilled; and slightly more than 1,250 (approximately .05 percent)\nare occupied by platforms. Production from the OCS program since\n1954 totals over [\n] barrels of crude oil and more than\n[\n] cubic feet of natural gas. Since its creation, the\nMinerals Management Service has been responsible for overseeing\nthe production of more than two billion barrels of crude oil and\nover 25.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and for generating\nover $90 billion in revenues from lease sales and lease rental\npayments for the Treasury.\nThe OCS accounts for a significant portion of existing U.S. oil\nand gas resources. The following chart shows the quantities of\nundiscovered oil and gas resources estimated to be economically\nrecoverable using existing technologies (Column A) and the\nquantities of proven reserves that have been discovered and are\neconomically recoverable (Column B) within the U.S. as a whole\nand the OCS separately:\nCOLUMN A\nCOLUMN B\nOil and Gas Resources\nOil and Gas Reserves\nU.S.\nOCS\nU.S.\nOCS\nOil (billion\nbarrels)\n34.8\n8.2\n26.8\n2.6\nNatural Gas\nLiquids (billion\nbarrels)\n6.3\n.8\n8.2\n.6\nNatural Gas (trillion\ncubic feet)\n262.7\n74.0\n168.0 32.3\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n00 JUN I P5: 07\nJune 1, 1990\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nDAVID Q. BATES\nESR\nSUBJECT:\nPresident's Task Force on Outer Continental Shelf\nLeasing and Development\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn your 1989 budget message to Congress, honoring a pledge made\nduring the campaign, you imposed a moratorium on three\ncontroversial Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales scheduled\nfor fiscal year 1990 -- sale 91 off the coast of northern\nCalifornia, sale 95 off the coast of southern California and sale\n116 in the Gulf of Mexico off the southwestern coast of\nFlorida -- pending a review of the environmental effects of the\nsales by a Cabinet-level task force. The Task Force, comprised\nof Secretaries Lujan (who served as chairman) and Watkins,\nDirector Darman and Administrators Reilly and Knauss, conducted\nbriefings and public workshops in Florida and California, met\nwith Members of Congress from those two states and solicited\nwritten comments. It also commissioned and received a study from\nthe National Academy of Sciences (NAS) addressing the adequacy of\nthe scientific and technical data available on which decisions on\nthe three lease sales could be made. The NAS concluded there was\ninadequate ecological, oceanographic and socioeconomic data for\nall three sales and recommended further studies be conducted.\nThe Task Force delivered its report to you on January 5. The\nreport identified multiple consensus options for each of the\nCalifornia and Florida sales, but made no recommendations. Since\ndelivery of the report, additional options have been identified\nby White House staff and by the Departments of the Interior and\nEnergy. A summary of the options for the California and Florida\nsales is found at Tab A.\nThe Interior Department options for the three delayed sales were\npart of a more comprehensive proposal that also addresses\nadditional proposed sales off the West and East Coasts that were\nnot studied by the Task Force. One of those sales is sale 119\noff the central California coast, in an area stretching from San\nFrancisco southward to the northern tip of Monterey Bay. At the\nsame time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n(NOAA), responding to a 1988 Congressional mandate, has proposed\nthe designation of a national marine sanctuary in the Monterey\nBay area. NOAA has also proposed regulations to prohibit all oil\nand gas exploration and development activities within the\nsanctuary. A summary of the options identified by White House\nstaff for sale 119 and the sanctuary is found at Tab B.\nOther proposed sales addressed by the Interior Department include\nsale 96 in the George's Bank area of the North Atlantic Planning\nArea, which stretches northward from Rhode Island to Canada, and\na sale off the coast of Washington and Oregon. The proposed\nactivities offshore Washington and Oregon have been the subject\nof a state-Interior Department task force. The task force has\nrecommended that an environmental impact statement for the\nproposed sale be deferred until additional environmental studies\nare conducted.\nII. OPTION FOR DISCUSSION\nThe following option is presented as a potential resolution of\nthe Task Force deliberations on the sales off California and\nFlorida and the broader issue of OCS development.\nGuiding Principles\nIn arriving at the specific decisions that comprise the option\ndiscussed below, and as a template for decisions on future OCS\ndevelopment, consideration must be given to the following\nprinciples:\n(1) Adequacy of Information and Analysis -- Adequate\nscientific and technical information regarding the resource\npotential of each area and the environmental, social and\neconomic effects of development must be available and\nsubjected to rigorous scrutiny before decisions are made.\nObtaining that data is the highest priority. No activity\nshould take place in any area without such information and\nanalysis.\n(2) Environmental Sensitivity -- It must be recognized\nthat there are certain areas off our coasts that represent\nirreplaceable natural resources. In those areas even the\nsmall risks posed by oil and gas development may be too\ngreat. In other areas where science and experience and new\nrecovery technologies show development may be safe,\ndevelopment will be considered.\n(3) Resource Potential -- Priority for development must\nbe given to those areas which have the greatest resource\npotential. Given the inexact nature of resource estimation,\nparticularly offshore, priority should be given to those\nareas where earlier development has proven the existence of\neconomically recoverable reserves. There may also be other\nundeveloped areas where the likelihood of significant\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\n(George Bush Library)\nDocument No.\nSubject/Title of Document\nDate\nRestriction\nClass.\nand Type\n01a. Memo\nFrom David Bates to POTUS\n6/1/90\nP-5\nRe: President's Task Force on Outer Continental Shelf\nLeasing and Development\nOptions section redacted (1 pp.)\nCollection:\nRecord Group:\nBush Presidential Records\nOffice:\nChief of Staff, White House Office of\nOpen on Expiration of PRA\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\n(Document Follows)\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nBy (NLGB) on 12/12/07\nWHORM Cat.:\nFile Location:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nDate Closed:\n12/10/2004\nOA/ID Number:\n29163-008\nFOIA/SYS Case #:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nAppeal Case #:\nRe-review Case #:\n2005-0426-S\nAppeal Disposition:\nP-2/P-5 Review Case #:\nDisposition Date:\nAR Case #:\nMR Case #:\nAR Disposition:\nMR Disposition:\nAR Disposition Date:\nMR Disposition Date:\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\n(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\n(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nagency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\n(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\n(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\n(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\n(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of\n(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\ngift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\n(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\nPRM Removed as a personal record misfile.\nresources, as demonstrated by the interest of the oil and\ngas industry, can justify possible development.\n(4) Energy Requirements -- The requirements of our\nnation's economy for energy and the overall costs and\nbenefits of various sources of energy must be considered in\ndeciding whether to develop oil and gas offshore. The level\nof petroleum imports, which has been steadily increasing, is\na critical factor in this assessment. At the same time,\ngreater availability of alternative energy sources and\nsavings from increased energy conservation and efficiency\nmay reduce our demand for traditional energy supplies. The\nNational Energy Strategy, due in December, will provide a\ncritical blueprint in this regard.\nThe relative weight of the above principles was considered in\ndeveloping the options presented for each sale, leading to\ndifferent conclusions for each area. For example, the NAS\nconclusion that adequate data are not available in all three\nareas is an essential factor in calling for cancellation of the\npending sales and further studies. The unique character of the\nMonterey Bay area, which serves as a vital breeding ground for\nmammals, and of the area involved in sale 116 off southwestern\nFlorida, containing our only living coral reef, tilts the balance\ntoward permanent or long-term protection. The presence of\nsuccessful drilling operations and known resources off certain\nareas of southern California weighs toward allowing continued\ndevelopment at an earlier time, assuming scientific and\nenvironmental uncertainties can be resolved.\nAt the same time, the changing nature of circumstances may also\nchange conclusions on what is the prudent course. The completion\nof the National Energy Strategy and our experience with its\nimplementation may lead to a different approach to future sales.\nExternal events, such as another oil embargo, might also lead to\na reevaluation of the entire OCS program, as is noted in the\nnational security exemption presented below.\nCalifornia and Florida Sales\nOption for California\nO\nCancel all sales scheduled for 1990, 1991 and 1992\noffshore California, including sales 91 and 95.\nConduct the additional oceanographic and socioeconomic\nstudies identified by the NAS, which should take 3 to 4\nyears.\nO\nExclude more than 99 percent of the tracts off\nCalifornia from consideration for any lease sale until\nafter the year 2000. The Interior Department has\nidentified approximately 90 tracts off the coast of\nsouthern California that have high resource potential.\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\n(George Bush Library)\nDocument No.\nSubject/Title of Document\nDate\nRestriction\nClass.\nand Type\n01b. Memo\nFrom David Bates to POTUS\n6/1/90\nP/5\nRe: President's Task Force on Outer Continental Shelf\nLeasing and Development (11 pp.)\nCollection:\nRecord Group:\nBush Presidential Records\nOffice:\nChief of Staff, White House Office of\nOpen on Expiration of PRA\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\n(Document Follows)\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nBy\nIf\n(NLGB) on 12/12/07\nWHORM Cat.:\nFile Location:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nDate Closed:\n12/10/2004\nOA/ID Number:\n29163-008\nFOIA/SYS Case #:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nAppeal Case #:\nRe-review Case #:\n2005-0426-S\nAppeal Disposition:\nP-2/P-5 Review Case #:\nDisposition Date:\nAR Case #:\nMR Case #:\nAR Disposition:\nMR Disposition:\nAR Disposition Date:\nMR Disposition Date:\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\n(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\n(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nagency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\n(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\n(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\n(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6). of the PRA]\n(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of\n(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\ngift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\n(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\nPRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.\nThe tracts, which are shown on the map at Tab C, are\nlocated in the Santa Maria Basin and Santa Barbara\nChannel and comprise approximately .7 percent of all of\nthe tracts off California. These tracts would be\navailable for possible leasing after January 1, 1996\nand after completion of the studies identified by the\nNAS.\nDiscussion of California Option\nThis option would enable you to frame your decision on the\nCalifornia lease sales in a manner that is sensitive to\nenvironmental concerns. The Administration could then state\nthat:\npermanent protection would be provided for the\nsensitive marine sanctuary in Monterey Bay;\nno drilling would be allowed off 99 percent of the\nCalifornia coast until after the year 2000; and\nno new drilling would be allowed anywhere off the coast\nuntil 1996, and then only in the most promising areas\nof the Santa Barbara Channel and the Santa Maria Basin\nand only after completion of studies by the NAS.\nThis option is built on two premises: first, that a\nscientific distinction can be made between lease sales off\nthese areas of southern California and the sales off\nnorthern California and Florida; and, second, that the\ndecision is responsive to the concerns expressed by the\nCalifornia Congressional delegation in your meeting with\nthem and in their proposals to the Interior Department in\n1986 and 1987.\nWith respect to the first premise, the NAS report to the\nTask Force clearly stated that \"the southwest Florida shelf\n(the area associated with Sale #116) comprises subtidal and\nnearshore habitats that are unique (emphasis added) within\nthe U.S. continental margin and provide refuge to a number\nof rare and endangered species.\" The NAS report also found\nthat the incremental risks of an oil spill associated with\nthe northern California sale (sale 91) were eight times\ngreater than the incremental risks of a spill associated\nwith either sale 116 or sale 95. In addition, the NAS found\nthat information concerning onshore socioeconomic impacts\nrelated to sale 91 was particularly lacking. Unlike in\nsouthern California, there is little onshore industrial\ninfra-structure now in place in the affected areas of\nnorthern California and the onshore effects of offshore\ndevelopment would be great.\nThe point is that distinctions can be made between sale 95\noff southern California and the other two sales. The area\nencompassed by sale 95 is not home to unique coral reefs or\nendangered species. In addition, because there is existing\noffshore development in state and federal waters near the\nareas proposed. for earlier development, the incremental risk\nof an oil spill and the effects on onshore infrastructure\nare lower. Thus development in the recommended portions of\nsale area 95 is different in terms of environmental impact\nand scientific merit from development in sale area 91 or\nsale area 116.\nWith respect to the second premise, you may recall that\nduring your meeting with the California delegation\nCongressman Panetta mentioned several compromises he had\noffered to Secretary Hodel in 1986. The central feature of\nhis proposal was the creation of a buffer zone along most of\nthe California coast, stretching from six to thirty miles\noffshore, in which no drilling would take place. The only\ntwo areas of the coast for which Congressman Panetta did not\npropose a buffer zone were the Santa Maria Basin and the\nSanta Barbara Channel. Thus, this option is consistent with\nhis earlier recommendations. A map displaying Congressman\nPanetta's proposal is attached at Tab D.\nIn sum, then, this option is responsive to both the\nscientific and environmental concerns identified by the NAS\nand the concerns identified by the California delegation in\nyour meeting with them.\nOption for Florida\no\nCancel sale 116 and exclude the area from consideration\nfor any lease sale until after the year 2000.\nConduct the additional oceanographic, ecological and\nsocioeconomic studies identified by the NAS, which\nshould be completed within 5 to 6 years.\nBegin cancellation under federal law of existing leases\noff Florida and initiate discussions with the State of\nFlorida for its participation in a joint federal-state\nbuy-back of the leases under existing authorities\ncontained in the OCS Lands Act. Your budget already\ncontains $200 million in FY 1995 for purchasing these\nleases.\nNational Security Exemption\no\nDictate that in the event the President determines that\nnational security requires development in these areas,\nhe would have the ability to direct the Interior\nDepartment to open the areas for development.\nAdvantages of Options\nStill allow relatively early drilling on promising\nsouthern California tracts. (The resource estimates\nfor the five basins in the Southern California Planning\nArea and an overview of resource estimates involved in\nthis OCS decision are found at Tab E.)\nDevelopment is underway in the areas where earlier\ndrilling would be permitted. These areas were not\nproposed for a buffer zone out 30 miles in the 1986\nproposal made by Congressman Panetta.\nCould alleviate pressures in Congress for the creation\nof ocean sanctuaries or permanent bans on leasing up\nand down the length of both the Atlantic and Pacific\nCoasts (as in the Boxer/Levine bill). This decision\ncould thus remove most of the sizable California and\nFlorida delegations from the national coalition that\nthreatens to jeopardize the entire OCS program.\nRecognize the political reality that no drilling is\nlikely to occur on California and Florida leases in the\nforeseeable future, given the clear disposition of the\nCongress on this matter.\nHave no adverse budgetary impact, as OMB has already\neliminated any projections of revenues from the sales\nfrom its budget receipt projections.\nRespond to NAS criticism that leasing always leads to\nfuture development without any subsequent analysis of\nenvironmental impacts.\nDisadvantages of Options\nO\nWill likely be strongly criticized by the oil and gas\nindustry.\nDrilling in even selected areas off California may\nstill be strongly criticized by environmentalists and\nCalifornia political leaders.\nMay be impossible to reverse decisions or adopt a less\naggressive posture in the future even if energy\nsecurity concerns arise.\nCould encourage future efforts to ban development in\nareas not now the subject of controversy, such as the\nGulf of Mexico.\nSale 119 and Monterey Bay Sanctuary\nOption\nCancel sale 119 and adopt sanctuary proposed by NOAA.\nPermanently prohibit all oil and gas activities within\nthe sanctuary.\nAllow no development in the sale 119 area outside the\nsanctuary until after the year 2000.\nAdvantages of Option\nRecognizes that this area is a nationally significant\nand environmentally sensitive resource (e.g., it\nincludes the largest breeding ground for marine mammals\nin the lower 48 states).\nAcknowledges the strength of public opposition to\ndevelopment off this portion of central California and\nthe fact that a more restrictive legislative ban on oil\nand gas activities will likely be enacted (as with the\nCordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary off San\nFrancisco last year) if regulatory prohibitions are not\nimposed.\nDisadvantages of Option\nCould be questioned because it ignores the precedential\nvalue of acting without an extensive analysis of the\navailable scientific data.\nCould bolster arguments for a permanent ban on oil and\ngas activities off California and even Washington and\nOregon.\nWashington and Oregon -- Sale 132\nExclude the area off the two states from consideration\nfor the 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs. A\nstate-Interior task force has recommended cancellation\nof the sale through 1997 pending further studies.\nNorth Atlantic (George's Bank) -- Sale 96\nCancel sale 96. (Note that the Boston Globe reported\nrecently that Interior was planning to cancel this\nsale.)\nConduct additional studies, including studies designed\nto determine the area's true resource potential.\nRecommendations for OCS Program\nDevelop a legislative initiative to provide coastal\ncommunities directly affected by OCS development with a\ngreater share of the financial benefits of new\ndevelopment and with more voice in decision-making.\nCharge the Interior Department with undertaking a\nprogram to improve the information needed to make\ndecisions on OCS development. This program will\ninclude conducting the studies identified by the NAS\nand studies to explore new technologies to alleviate\nthe risks of oil spills and new oil and gas drilling\ntechnologies, such as submersible drilling rigs.\nDirect the Interior Department to ensure that future\nOCS five-year plans provide for better targeting of\nproposed sale areas to ensure that only areas with the\ngreatest resource potential are offered for sale.\nSummary\nThe option presented here will go far toward addressing the\nenvironmental concerns expressed about offshore drilling.\nIt would put most of the California coast and the sensitive\narea off the Florida Everglades off limits to oil and gas\ndevelopment until after the year 2000. It would provide\npermanent protection for the sanctuary at Monterery Bay. It\nwould suggest long delays for controversial sales off of\nWashington and Oregon and in George's Bank. Finally, it\nwould respond to the concerns expressed by the National\nAcademy of Sciences regarding the need for better\ninformation before offshore development occurs. Moreover,\nthe option provides needed reforms in the conduct of the OCS\nprogram: better targeting of future sales and greater\nassistance to the most heavily impacted coastal communities.\nThis option should clear away an array of pending\nenvironmental concerns and allow a more carefully targeted\nand scientifically sound offshore development program to go\nforward with renewed confidence and less resistance.\nIII. NEXT STEP\nIn your meetings with the California Congressional delegation,\nsome of the members hinted at the possibility of further\nconsultations prior to the announcement of your decision, and\nthis should be considered. Governors Martinez and Deukmej ian\nhave also been intensely interested in this decision, and some\ntype of personal consultations or discussions with them should\nalso be considered. The chairmen and ranking members of relevant\nSenate and House committees could also be consulted.\nIV. DECISION\nApprove\nDisapprove\nOther\nINDEX TO ATTACHMENTS\nTab A\nSummary of Options for California and Florida\nSales\nTab B\nSummary of Options for Sale 119 and Monterey\nBay Sanctuary\nTab C\nMap Showing Leases in Santa Maria Basin and\nSanta Barbara Channel off Southern\nCalifornia Considered for Earlier\nDevelopment\nTab D\nMap Showing Proposal by Congressman Panetta\nfor Buffer Zone off Southern California\nTab E\nResource Estimates for Basins in Southern\nCalifornia Planning Area and Overview of\nResource Estimates\nA\nOCS TASK FORCE OPTIONS SUMMARY\nCALIFORNIA\nFLORIDA\n19\"\nNorthern California\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n60°\nPlanning Area\nSALE AREAS\n20°\nLEVEN\nSALE 91\nFLORIDA\n27\nWest Pain\nBeach\nATLANTIC OCEAN\n27*\nSale 116\n-\nConta\n26°\n26°\nCentral California\nPlanning Area\n25\nmay Large\n25°\nPACIFIC OCEAN\nSALE 119\nMate\nDry\nTerhages\nKey was\nEastern\n24\nTeam Late Chips\nGulf of Mexico\n24°\nPlanning Area\n-\nBorters\nLOS ANGELES\nso\n100\nHaveng\n23°\nSTATUTE MILES\n23°\nContinues\nSALE 95\nOcean\n-\nW\nCUBA\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n60°\nSAN-\nDIEGO\nSCALE 16,000.000\nSouthern California\nPlanning Area\nEarliest\nGeneric Options Identified by the Task Force.\nPossible\nStaff, and Affected Agencies:\nDrill Date\n1.) Defer Presidential decision until after\npublication of National Energy Strategy.\n1992\n2.) Cancel sale at this time and defer decision\nuntil studies identified by NAS completed.\n1993\n3.) Defer sale until 1992-1997 five-year plan and\noffer only selected tracts off California.\n1993-95\n4.) Defer sale until 1997-2002 five-year plan.\n1997\n5.) Defer sale until after next two five-year plans.\n2002\n6.) Cancel sale and impose permanent ban except\nfor national security requirements.\nUnknown\nOption Offered for Discussion:\nSale 91: Defer any sale until after 2000\n2000\nSale 95: Defer sale in majority of area until after 2000.\n2000 for most;\nOffer most promising areas in Santa Barbara Channel\n1996 for\nand Santa Maria basin (91 tracts) only upon completion\nselected\nof NAS-recommended environmental studies in 1995.\nareas\n(The California coast has 13,000 tracts; thus more than\n99% of this coast would be protected until after 2000)\nSale 116: Defer any sale until after 2000. Proceed with\nbuyback of existing leases. Begin discussions with\n2000\nstate of Florida about participating in lease buyback.\nDelays proposed for all 3 sales would be subject to national security exemption.\nB\nSale 119: Central California\nBackground:\nA related issue to the three sales considered by the Task Force is the\ndisposition of lease sale 119 off central California. This area is subject to a\nCongressional moratorium on pre-leasing activities in the current fiscal year.\nThe sale area, shown on the map below, stretches from north of San Francisco\npast Monterey Bay to Big Sur. In 1988, Congress mandated the creation of a\nNational Marine Sanctuary in Monterey Bay. NOAA has proposed to designate\nan area for the sanctuary covering about 2,200 square miles -- including\nsignificant portions of the sale area. The proposed NOAA rule would prohibit\noil and gas exploration and development activities within the sanctuary. Such\na ban is not mandatory within a marine sanctuary. Sanctuaries in several\nother parts of the country are not subject to such a ban, although others off\nthe California coast are.\nThere are two issues now pending related to sale 119. First is whether to\npublish the NOAA rule adopting the sanctuary boundaries and banning oil and\ngas activities in the sanctuary. The second is whether to cancel the sale, and\nfor how long. Many members of Congress and the public are expecting a\ndecision on sale 119 to be announced concurrently with a decision on the\nother California lease sales.\n126°\n124°\n122°\nCENTRAL CALIFORNIA\nPLANNING AREA\nSALE 119\nBODEGA BAY\nMonterey Bay\nProposed Marine Sanctuary\n38°\nSAN CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO\n38°\nOAKLAND\nSAN JOSE\nSANTA CRUZ\nMONTEREY\nBIG SUR\no\n50\n100\n36°\nMILES\n36°\n126°\n124°\n122°\nOptions:\nAdopt NOAA sanctuary boundaries but allow oil and gas development\nAdopt oil and gas ban in sanctuary but proceed with sale outside sanctuary\nboundaries.\nAdopt NOAA proposal and cancel sale 119 until 1997¹\nAdopt NOAA proposal and cancel sale 119 until 2000¹\n1\nWith national security exemption as proposed for sales 91, 95, and 116.\nC\n124°\n123°\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nSan Simeon Pt\nMost Prospective Tracts\nPt. Estero\n3% of Total\nMorro Bay\nSanta Maria and\nSan Luis Obispo\nSanta Barbara Areas\nSanta Maria\nSanta\n35\nNI 10-2\nNI 10-3\nBarbara\n35\nSanta Maria\nPt. Sal\nChannel\nPurisma Pt\nSouthern California\nCALIFORNIA\nLompoc\nPt. Conception\nSanta\nPlanning Area\nGaviota\nBarbara\nPitas Pt.\nle\nVentura\n1:00PM\nLOS ANGELES\nPt. Dume\n34\nNI 10-6\nSanta Monica\n34\nTHE\nsand\nSenta\nLong Beach\nsana\nPt. Fermin\nSantal\nLaguna Beach\nDana Pt.\nBB\nBantal\n2\nOceanside\nBA\nseal\n33\nNI 10-9\n33\nLa Jolla\nSan Diego\nBD\nProspective Blocks\nBC\nSale 95 Area Boundary\nBE\nN\nMexico\nBASIN\nNUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE BLOCKS\n32\nNH11-10\n32\nSanta Maria\n45\nSanta Barbara\n42\nTOTAL\n87\n0\n50\n100\n31\nNH 11-\nSTATUTE MILES\n31\nNH11-4\n124°\n123°\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nMMS/06/90\nD\n124°\n123°\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nSan Simson Pt.\nPt. Estero\nMost Prospective Tracts\nMorro Bay\n3% of Total Southern California\nSan Luis Obispo\nPlanning Area Tracts\nSanta Maria\nSanta\n35\nNI 10-2\nNI 10-3\n35\nBarbara\nSanta Maria\nSel\nChannel\nPurisma Pt.\nSouthern California\nCALIFORNIA\nLompoc\nPt. Conception\nSanta\nPlanning Area\nGaviota\nBarbara\nLos Angeles\nPitas Pt\nTOTAL NUMBER OF BLOCKS\n6\nVentura\nWilmington\nLOS ANGELES\nSouthern California Planning Area = 5661\nPt. Dume\n34\nNI 10-6\nSanta Monica\n34\nSale 95 Area = 1317\nLong Beach\nmin\nPANETTA'S PROPOSAL\nDEFER UNTIL THE YEAR 2000\nLaguna Beach\nDana Pt.\nSan Diego\nDEFER FROM 5 YEAR PROGRAM\nOceanside\nSUBJECT TO LEASING RESTRICTIONS\n33\nNI 10-9\n33\nLa Jolla\nSan Diego\nBD\nProspective Blocks\nSale 95 Area Boundary\nN\nMexico\nBASIN\nNUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE BLOCKS\n32°\nNH11-10\n32\nSanta Maria\n38\nSanta Barbara\n40\nLos Angeles\n30\nWilmington\n35\nSan Diego\n26\no\n50\n100\n31'\nTOTAL\n169\nNH 11-\nSTATUTE MILES\n3,1\nNH11-4\n124°\n123°\nMM8/05/90\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nE\nSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING AREA\nRESOURCE POTENTIAL\nOil\n%\nGas\n*\n(billion of\ntrillion\nof\nbarrels) Total\ncubic ft)\nTotal\nSanta Maria Basin\n.62\n40.5\n.57\n23.2\nSanta Barbara Basin\n.32\n20.9\n.90\n36.6\nWilmington Basin\n.06\n3.9\n.09\n3.7\nLos Angeles Basin\n.06\n3.9\n.08\n3.2\nSan Diego Basin\n.47\n30.8\n.82\n33.3\nOVERVIEW OF U.S.\nRESOURCE POTENTIAL\nOil\n*\nGas\n%\n(billion of\ntrillion\nof\nbarrels) Total\ncubic ft)\nTotal\nTotal U.S. Resources\n34.80\n263.00\nEntire OCS\n8.20\n23.6\n74.00\n28.1\nANWR\n3.20\n9.2\n6.90 (1)\n2.6\nExisting Fla. Leases\n.14\n.4\n.30\n.1\nExisting S. Cal. Leases (2)\n.34\n1.0\n.80\n.3\nSale 116\n.11\n.3\n---\nSale 95\n.23\n.7\n.46\n.2\nSale 91\n.20\n.6\n.41\n.2\nSale 119\n.16\n.5\n.26\n.1\nDRAFT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nJune 5, 1990\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nI have often stated my belief that development of oil and gas\non the outer continental shelf (OCS) should occur in an\nenvironmentally sound manner. In my address to the Congress\nin February of 1989, I stated my support for a moratorium on\noil and gas leasing activity in areas off the coasts of\nsouthwestern Florida and northern and southern California\nwhere particular concerns about the environment had been\nexpressed. At that time, I appointed an interagency Task\nForce to investigate further these concerns.\nI have received the report of the Task Force and have\nconcluded that further steps to protect the environment are\nneeded.\nToday, I am announcing my support for a moratorium on oil and\ngas leasing and development in Sale Area 116 off the coast of\nFlorida, Sale Area 91 off the coast of northern California,\nand the majority of Sale Area 95 off the coast of southern\nCalifornia, until after the year 2000. I am directing the\nSecretary of the Interior to initiate discussions with the\nState of Florida and with lessees concerning a possible\nbuyback of existing leases in Sale Area 116, and to initiate\nprocedures that could lead to their cancellation under the\nterms of the OCS Lands Act.\nIn addition, I believe that no oil and gas leasing and\ndevelopment activity should occur anywhere in these three\nareas until after completion of the further studies\nrecommended by the National Academy of Sciences in its report\nto the Task Force. Thus, I support a moratorium on further\nleasing activity in the Santa Maria Basin and Santa Barbara\nChannel areas of Sale Area 95 until January 1, 1996. These\nareas would be available for sale after that date only if the\nconcerns expressed by the Academy can be addre sed\nsatisfactorily.\nIn addition to those areas studied by the Task Force, concern\nhas been expressed about several other areas on the OCS\ncurrently scheduled to be available for oil and gas leasing.\nI am further recommending several actions to address these\nconcerns.\nWith respect to Sale Area 119, off the coast of Central\nCalifornia, I recommend a moratorium on oil and gas leasing\nDRAFT\n-2-\nand development until after the year 2000. In addition, I\nhave approved a proposal by the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a national\nMarine Sanctuary in Monterey Bay, and to prohibit oil and gas\ndevelopment permanently within this sanctuary.\nWith respect to Sale Area 132, off the coasts of Washington\nand Oregon, I am accepting the recommendations of a task\nforce established by the Secretary of the Interior to exclude\nthis area for oil and gas leasing and development until after\nthe year 2000, pending completion of further studies.\nWith respect to Sale Area 96, on Georges Bank off the coast\nof New England, I am recommending a moratorium on oil and gas\nleasing and development until after the year 2000, pending\nfurther studies to determine the true resource potential of\nthe area.\nThe combined effect of these decisions is that the coasts of\nFlorida, Washington, Oregon, New England, and 99 percent of\nthe California coast will be off limits to oil and gas\nleasing until after the year 2000. Only those areas which\nare in close proximity to existing oil and gas development in\nFederal and state waters, comprising less than 1% of the\ntracts off the California coast, may be available before\nthen. And these areas will not be available for leasing in\nany event until 1996.\nSome areas are so unique and valuable that they deserve\npermanent protection -- Monterey Bay is one of these.\nFinally, I am today directing the Secretary of the Interior\nto take several steps to improve the OCS program and respond\nto several of the concerns expressed by the Task Force. The\nsteps include:\nO\ntargeting more carefully future OCS five-year plans\nto ensure that only those areas with the greatest resource\npotential and the least environmental risk are offered for\nsale;\nO\ndeveloping a proposal to allow those local areas\nmost directly affected by OCS development to receive a\ngreater share of the financial benefits of new development;\nO\nimproving the quality of the information gathered\nprior to making leasing and development decisions to address\nthe inadequacies highlighted by the National Academy of\nSciences in its report to the Task Force;\nDRAFT\n-3-\nO\nproceeding with steps to ensure that air quality\nstandards for California OCS activities are similar to those\nwhich apply onshore;\nO\ndeveloping and implementing an interagency plan to\nreduce the probability of oil spills from any source,\nincluding tanker traffic; and\nO\nimplementing immediately plans to upgrade the\nnation's ability to respond to oil spills from any source.\nThe OCS program which will result from implementation of\nthese steps will be a leaner, more carefully targeted, and\nultimately more effective program. It will reflect my desire\nto achieve a balance between the need to develop our domestic\nenergy resources and the need to protect unique and sensitive\ncoastal and marine environments.\nMy intent in announcing these decisions is to respond to the\nenvironmental concerns which have been expressed with respect\nto these sales, to put the controversy surrounding the OCS\nprogram to rest, and to allow the effort to develop promising\ndomestic energy resources on the OCS to go forward on a more\ncarefully targeted and environmentally sensitive basis.\n#\n#\n#\n#\n1\nDRAFT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFor Immediate Release:\nJune 5, 1990\nFACT SHEET:\nPRESIDENTIAL DECISIONS CONCERNING OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON\nTHE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF\nThe President today announced a series of decisions related\nto oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf\n(OCS). The decisions are intended both to respond to the\nreport of the interagency OCS Leasing and Development Task\nForce and to provide more general direction for the future of\nthe OCS program.\nThe President believes that the nation needs to find a\nbalance between development of important domestic energy\nresources and protection of the environment in sensitive\nareas.\nOil and Gas Leasing and Development Off the Coasts of\nSouthwest Florida and California:\nThe Task Force has devoted a year of study, analysis and\npublic consultation to the question of oil and gas leasing\nand development in Sale Area 116 off the coast of Southwest\nFlorida and Sale Areas 91 and 95 off the California coast.\nOne of the key findings of the Task Force was that\n\"additional time and effort are needed before environmental\nconcerns can be resolved in a manner that provides an\nacceptable balance\" between the goals of domestic energy\ndevelopment and environmental protection.\nSpecifically, the Task Force found that:\n0\nthe southwest Florida shelf comprises subtitle and\nnearshore habitats that are unique within the U.S.\ncontinental margin and provide refuge to a number of\nrare and endangered species;\nthe incremental risk of oil spill associated with the\nnorthern California sale (Sale Area 91) was far greater\nthan that associated with the other two sales;\ninformation concerning the onshore socioeconomic effects\nof oil and gas development was particularly lacking for\n2\nDRAFT\nthe Florida sale (Sale Area 116) and the northern\nCalifornia sale (Sale Area 91);\nO\nsome additional studies, in response to the report of\nthe National Academy of Sciences, are needed before the\nSecretary of the Interior makes leasing decisions in any\nof the three areas.\nThe President today recommended that:\n0\nNo oil and gas development take place in Sale Area 116\noff the coast of southwest Florida until after the year 2000;\nO\nThe Department of the Interior initiate discussions with\nthe State of Florida and with lessees to facilitate purchase\nof existing leases in this area, and the Secretary of the\nInterior initiate procedures that could lead to cancellation\nof the existing leases pursuant to section 5 of the OCS Lands\nAct.\nO\nNo oil and gas development take place in Sale Area 91\noff the coast of northern California until after the year\n2000;\nO\nNo oil and gas development take place in Sale Area 95\nsouth of the Santa Barbara Channel until after the year 2000;\nO\nDevelopment in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria\nbasin, areas which are close proximity to existing oil and\ngas development in Federal and State waters, be delayed at\nleast until after January 1. 1996 -- which will allow for the\nadditional studies recommended by the National Academy of\nSciences to be conducted. Development could then go forward\nif deemed prudent in light of the results of the studies;\n0\nNo oil and gas development take place in any of the\nareas considered by the Task Force until the concerns\nidentified by the National Academy of Sciences have been\nsatisfactorily addressed and the studies recommended by the\nAcademy have been conducted.\nThe task force also put forward several general\nrecommendations which the President today adopted:\nO\nAir quality controls should be adopted for the\nCalifornia OCS which are substantially the same as those\napplied on shore. This is consistent with the position taken\nby the Administration in Clean Air Act negotiations with the\nSenate.\no\nSteps should be taken immediately to improve the ability\nof industry and the Federal government to respond to oil\nspills from any source.\n3\nDRAFT\n0\nFederal agencies should develop a plan to reduce the\nprobability of oil spills from all sources, including and\nespecially those from tanker traffic. This plan should\ninclude moving oil tanker routes further away from sensitive\nareas in the Florida Keys and the Everglades, as previously\nproposed.\nSale Area 119: Central California\nConsideration of leasing and development off the northern and\nsouthern California coasts by the Task Force has been\naccompanied by strong concern about the prospect of oil and\ngas leasing and development in Sale Area 119, off the coast\nof central California. The area includes several unique\nmarine and coastal resources in the proposed Monterey Bay\nNational Marine Sanctuary.\nThe President today recommended that no oil and gas\ndevelopment take place in Sale Area 119 before the year 2000.\nIn addition, the President today approved a proposal by the\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to\nprovide permanent protection to the Monterey Bay National\nMarine Sanctuary. The proposal includes a permanent ban on\noil and gas development within the sanctuary.\nIn combination with my decisions on areas studied by the task\nforce, adoption of these recommendations will mean that:\nNo oil and gas development will occur off 99 percent of\nthe California coast until after the year 2000.\nPermanent protection will be provided in one of the\nmost sensitive coastal areas.\nIn the remaining one percent, no oil and gas development\nwill occur until 1996, if at all, and will occur only\nupon completion of further environmental studies and\nsteps taken to address environmental concerns.\nOther Controversial Sale Areas: Oregon, Washington, and\nGeorges Bank\nThe Department of the Interior has also convened a task force\nto address environmental concerns related to leasing and\ndevelopment in Sale Area 132, off the coast of Oregon and\nWashington. The task force has recommended cancellation of\nthese sales pending further study. Today, the President\nrecommended that any oil and gas development in this area be\ndelayed until after the year 2000, pending completion of the\nfurther studies recommended by the task force.\n4\nDRAFT\nA similar controversy has arisen over oil and gas development\nin Sale Area 96, the Georges Bank area off the coast of New\nEngland. The President today recommended that any\ndevelopment in this area be delayed until after the year\n2000, pending further study to determine the true resource\npotential of the area.\nGeneral OCS Program Recommendations:\nThe President believes that if the balance between\ndevelopment of our domestic energy resources and protection\nof unique and sensitive coastal and marine environments is to\nbe struck, the OCS program in the future will need to be\ntargeted much more carefully toward areas with truly\npromising resource potential; sensitive to the concerns and\nneeds of local areas affected by OCS development; and\nbuttressed by information adequate to ensure that oil and gas\ndevelopment can go forward in an environmentally sound\nmanner.\nTherefore, the President today directed the Department of the\nInterior to take three broad steps in order to improve the\nOCS program:\nO\nThe Department should target all future OCS five-\nyear plans to ensure that only those areas with the greatest\nresource potential and the least environmental risk are\noffered for sale. This will necessarily result in much\nsmaller and more carefully selected blocks being offered in\nthe future.\nO\nThe Department should develop a legislative\nproposal to allow coastal communities directly affected by\nOCS development to receive a greater share of financial\nbenefits of new development and to have a stronger voice in\nOCS decision-making.\nThe Department should begin immediately to develop\na program to improve the adequacy of the information needed\nto make OCS decisions. This should include the information\nidentified in the report of the National Academy of Sciences\nto the Task Force, as well as studies to explore new\ntechnologies to alleviate the risks oil spills.\nConclusion:\nTaken together, these decisions represent a dramatic response\nto the concerns which have been expressed about oil and gas\ndevelopment on the outer continental shelf. They will\nprovide significant protection for areas which have aroused\n5\nDRAFT\ngreat controversy off the coasts of Florida, California,\nWashington, Oregon, and New England.\nThe OCS program which will result from the approach outlined\nby the President will be leaner, more effective, and more\nfocused on producing the greatest results with the least\nenvironmental disruption.\nThe President has long been committed to offshore oil and gas\ndevelopment where it can be accomplished in an\nenvironmentally sound manner. The President's intention is\nthat this set of decisions will allow the OCS program now to\nmove forward with less controversy, fewer threats posed to\nthe environment, and sound footing from which to develop\nAmerica's most promising energy resources.\n# # # #\nDRAFT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nJune 5, 1990\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nI have often stated my belief that development of oil and gas\non the outer continental shelf (OCS) should occur in an\nenvironmentally sound manner. In my address to the Congress\nin February of 1989, I stated my support for a moratorium on\noil and gas leasing activity in areas off the coasts of\nsouthwestern Florida and northern and southern California\nwhere particular concerns about the environment had been\nexpressed. At that time, I appointed an interagency Task\nForce to investigate further these concerns.\nI have received the report of the Task Force and have\nconcluded that further steps to protect the environment are\nneeded.\nToday, I am announcing my support for a moratorium on oil and\ngas leasing and development in Sale Area 116 off the coast of\nFlorida, Sale Area 91 off the coast of northern California,\nand the majority of Sale Area 95 off the coast of southern\nCalifornia, until after the year 2000. I am directing the\nSecretary of the Interior to initiate discussions with the\nState of Florida and with lessees concerning a possible\nbuyback of existing leases in Sale Area 116, and to initiate\nprocedures that could lead to their cancellation under the\nterms of the OCS Lands Act.\nIn addition, I believe that no oil and gas leasing and\ndevelopment activity should occur anywhere in these three\nareas until after completion of the further studies\nrecommended by the National Academy of Sciences in its report\nto the Task Force. Thus, I support a moratorium on further\nleasing activity in the Santa Maria Basin and Santa Barbara\nChannel areas of Sale Area 95 until January 1, 1996. These\nareas would be available for sale after that date only if the\nconcerns expressed by the Academy can be addressed\nsatisfactorily.\nIn addition to those areas studied by the Task Force, concern\nhas been expressed about several other areas on the OCS\ncurrently scheduled to be available for oil and gas leasing.\nI am further recommending several actions to address these\nconcerns.\nWith respect to Sale Area 119, off the coast of Central\nCalifornia, I recommend a moratorium on oil and gas leasing\nDRAFT\n-2-\n11:\nand development until after the year 2000. In addition, I\nhave approved a proposal by the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a national\nMarine Sanctuary in Monterey Bay, and to prohibit oil and gas\ndevelopment permanently within this sanctuary.\nWith respect to Sale Area 132, off the coasts of Washington\nand Oregon, I am accepting the recommendations of a task\nforce established by the Secretary of the Interior to exclude\nthis area for oil and gas leasing and development until after\nthe year 2000, pending completion of further studies.\nWith respect to Sale Area 96, on Georges Bank off the coast\nof New England, I am recommending a moratorium on oil and gas\nleasing and development until after the year 2000, pending\nfurther studies to determine the true resource potential of\nthe area.\nThe combined effect of these decisions is that the coasts of\nFlorida, Washington, Oregon, New England, and 99 percent of\nthe California coast will be off limits to oil and gas\nleasing until after the year 2000. Only those areas which\nare in close proximity to existing oil and gas development in\nFederal and state waters, comprising less than 1% of the\ntracts off the California coast, may be available before\nthen. And these areas will not be available for leasing in\nany event until 1996.\nSome areas are so unique and valuable that they deserve\npermanent protection -- Monterey Bay is one of these.\nFinally, I am today directing the Secretary of the Interior\nto take several steps to improve the OCS program and respond\nto several of the concerns expressed by the Task Force. The\nsteps include:\no\ntargeting more carefully future OCS five-year plans\nto ensure that only those areas with the greatest resource\npotential and the least environmental risk are offered for\nsale;\nO\ndeveloping a proposal to allow those local areas\nmost directly affected by OCS development to receive a\ngreater share of the financial benefits of new development;\nO\nimproving the quality of the information gathered\nprior to making leasing and development decisions to address\nthe inadequacies highlighted by the National Academy of\nSciences in its report to the Task Force;\nDRAFT\n-3-\nO\nproceeding with steps to ensure that air quality\nstandards for California OCS activities are similar to those\nwhich apply onshore;\nO\ndeveloping and implementing an interagency plan to\nreduce the probability of oil spills from any source,\nincluding tanker traffic; and\nO\nimplementing immediately plans to upgrade the\nnation's ability to respond to oil spills from any source.\nThe OCS program which will result from implementation of\nthese steps will be a leaner, more carefully targeted, and\nultimately more effective program. It will reflect my desire\nto achieve a balance between the need to develop our domestic\nenergy resources and the need to protect unique and sensitive\ncoastal and marine environments.\nMy intent in announcing these decisions is to respond to the\nenvironmental concerns which have been expressed with respect\nto these sales, to put the controversy surrounding the OCS\nprogram to rest, and to allow the effort to develop promising\ndomestic energy resources on the OCS to go forward on a more\ncarefully targeted and environmentally sensitive basis.\n#\n#\n#\n#\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n00 JUN I P5: 07\nJune 1, 1990\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE\nFROM:\nDAVID PRESIDENT Q. BATES DrR\nSUBJECT:\nPresident's Task Force on Outer Continental Shelf\nLeasing and Development\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn your 1989 budget message to Congress, honoring a pledge made\nduring the campaign, you imposed a moratorium on three\ncontroversial Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales scheduled\nfor fiscal year 1990 -- sale 91 off the coast of northern\nCalifornia, sale 95 off the coast of southern California and sale\n116 in the Gulf of Mexico off the southwestern coast of\nFlorida -- pending a review of the environmental effects of the\nsales by a Cabinet-level task force. The Task Force, comprised\nof Secretaries Lujan (who served as chairman) and Watkins,\nDirector Darman and Administrators Reilly and Knauss, conducted\nbriefings and public workshops in Florida and California, met\nwith Members of Congress from those two states and solicited\nwritten comments. It also commissioned and received a study from\nthe National Academy of Sciences (NAS) addressing the adequacy of\nthe scientific and technical data available on which decisions on\nthe three lease sales could be made. The NAS concluded there was\ninadequate ecological, oceanographic and socioeconomic data for\nall three sales and recommended further studies be conducted.\nThe Task Force delivered its report to you on January 5. The\nreport identified multiple consensus options for each of the\nCalifornia and Florida sales, but made no recommendations. Since\ndelivery of the report, additional options have been identified\nby White House staff and by the Departments of the Interior and\nEnergy. A summary of the options for the California and Florida\nsales is found at Tab A.\nThe Interior Department options for the three delayed sales were\npart of a more comprehensive proposal that also addresses\nadditional proposed sales off the West and East Coasts that were\nnot studied by the Task Force. One of those sales is sale 119\noff the central California coast, in an area stretching from San\nFrancisco southward to the northern tip of Monterey Bay. At the\nsame time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n(NOAA), responding to a 1988 Congressional mandate, has proposed\nthe designation of a national marine sanctuary in the Monterey\nBay area. NOAA has also proposed regulations to prohibit all oil\nand gas exploration and development activities within the\nsanctuary. A summary of the options identified by White House\nstaff for sale 119 and the sanctuary is found at Tab B.\nOther proposed sales addressed by the Interior Department include\nsale 96 in the George's Bank area of the North Atlantic Planning\nArea, which stretches northward from Rhode Island to Canada, and\na sale off the coast of Washington and Oregon. The proposed\nactivities offshore Washington and Oregon have been the subject\nof a state-Interior Department task force. The task force has\nrecommended that an environmental impact statement for the\nproposed sale be deferred until additional environmental studies\nare conducted.\nII. OPTION FOR DISCUSSION\nThe following option is presented as a potential resolution of\nthe Task Force deliberations on the sales off California and\nFlorida and the broader issue of OCS development.\nGuiding Principles\nIn arriving at the specific decisions that comprise the option\ndiscussed below, and as a template for decisions on future OCS\ndevelopment, consideration must be given to the following\nprinciples:\n(1) Adequacy of Information and Analysis -- Adequate\nscientific and technical information regarding the resource\npotential of each area and the environmental, social and\neconomic effects of development must be available and\nsubjected to rigorous scrutiny before decisions are made.\nObtaining that data is the highest priority. No activity\nshould take place in any area without such information and\nanalysis.\n(2) Environmental Sensitivity -- It must be recognized\nthat there are certain areas off our coasts that represent\nirreplaceable natural resources. In those areas even the\nsmall risks posed by oil and gas development may be too\ngreat. In other areas where science and experience and new\nrecovery technologies show development may be safe,\ndevelopment will be considered.\n(3) Resource Potential -- Priority for development must\nbe given to those areas which have the greatest resource\npotential. Given the inexact nature of resource estimation,\nparticularly offshore, priority should be given to those\nareas where earlier development has proven the existence of\neconomically recoverable reserves. There may also be other\nundeveloped areas where the likelihood of significant\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\n(George Bush Library)\nDocument No.\nSubject/Title of Document\nDate\nRestriction\nClass.\nand Type\n02a. Memo\nFrom David Bates to POTUS\n6/1/90\n5\nRe: President's Task Force on Outer Continental Shelf\nLeasing and Development [same as doc 01a]\nOptions section redacted (1 pp.)\nCollection:\nRecord Group:\nBush Presidential Records\nOffice:\nChief of Staff, White House Office of\nOpen on Expiration of PRA\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\n(Document Follows)\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nWHORM Cat.:\nBy IP (NLGB) on 12/12/07\nFile Location:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nDate Closed:\n12/10/2004\nOA/ID Number:\n29163-008\nFOIA/SYS Case #:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nAppeal Case #:\nRe-review Case #:\n2005-0426-S\nAppeal Disposition:\nP-2/P-5 Review Case #:\nDisposition Date:\nAR Case #:\nMR Case #:\nAR Disposition:\nMR Disposition:\nAR Disposition Date:\nMR Disposition Date:\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\n(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\n(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nagency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\n(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\n(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\n(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\n(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of\n(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\ngift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\n(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\nPRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.\nresources, as demonstrated by the interest of the oil and\ngas industry, can justify possible development.\n(4) Energy Requirements -- The requirements of our\nnation's economy for energy and the overall costs and\nbenefits of various sources of energy must be considered in\ndeciding whether to develop oil and gas offshore. The level\nof petroleum- imports, which has been steadily increasing, is\na critical factor in this assessment. At the same time,\ngreater availability of alternative energy sources and\nsavings from increased energy conservation and efficiency\nmay reduce our demand for traditional energy supplies. The\nNational Energy Strategy, due in December, will provide a\ncritical blueprint in this regard.\nThe relative weight of the above principles was considered in\ndeveloping the options presented for each sale, leading to\ndifferent conclusions for each area. For example, the NAS\nconclusion that adequate data are not available in all three\nareas is an essential factor in calling for cancellation of the\npending sales and further studies. The unique character of the\nMonterey Bay area, which serves as a vital breeding ground for\nmammals, and of the area involved in sale 116 off southwestern\nFlorida, containing our only living coral reef, tilts the balance\ntoward permanent or long-term protection. The presence of\nsuccessful drilling operations and known resources off certain\nareas of southern California weighs toward allowing continued\ndevelopment at an earlier time, assuming scientific and\nenvironmental uncertainties can be resolved.\nAt the same time, the changing nature of circumstances may also\nchange conclusions on what is the prudent course. The completion\nof the National Energy Strategy and our experience with its\nimplementation may lead to a different approach to future sales.\nExternal events, such as another oil embargo, might also lead to\na reevaluation of the entire OCS program, as is noted in the\nnational security exemption presented below.\nCalifornia and Florida Sales\nOption for California\no\nCancel all sales scheduled for 1990, 1991 and 1992\noffshore California, including sales 91 and 95.\nO\nConduct the additional oceanographic and socioeconomic\nstudies identified by the NAS, which should take 3 to 4\nyears.\no\nExclude more than 99 percent of the tracts off\nCalifornia from consideration for any lease sale until\nafter the year 2000. The Interior Department has\nidentified approximately 90 tracts off the coast of\nsouthern California that have high resource potential.\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\n(George Bush Library)\nDocument No.\nSubject/Title of Document\nDate\nRestriction\nClass.\nand Type\n02b. Memo\nFrom David Bates to POTUS\n6/1/90\nP-5\nRe: President's Task Force on Outer Continental Shelf\nLeasing and Development\n[same as doc 01b] (11 pp.)\nCollection:\nRecord Group:\nBush Presidential Records\nOffice:\nChief of Staff, White House Office of\nOpen on Expiration of PRA\n(Document Follows)\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\nBy\nIf\n(NLGB)\non\n12/12/07\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nWHORM Cat.:\nFile Location:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nDate Closed:\n12/10/2004\nOA/ID Number:\n29163-008\nFOIA/SYS Case #:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nAppeal Case #:\nRe-review Case #:\n2005-0426-S\nAppeal Disposition:\nP-2/P-5 Review Case #:\nDisposition Date:\nAR Case #:\nMR Case #:\nAR Disposition:\nMR Disposition:\nAR Disposition Date:\nMR Disposition Date:\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\n(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\n(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nagency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\n(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\n(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\n(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\n(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of\n(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\ngift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\n(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\nPRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.\nThe tracts, which are shown on the map at Tab C, are\nlocated in the Santa Maria Basin and Santa Barbara\nChannel and comprise approximately .7 percent of all of\nthe tracts off California. These tracts would be\navailable for possible leasing after January 1, 1996\nand after completion of the studies identified by the\nNAS.\nDiscussion of California Option\nThis option would enable you to frame your decision on the\nCalifornia lease sales in a manner that is sensitive to\nenvironmental concerns. The Administration could then state\nthat:\npermanent protection would be provided for the\nsensitive marine sanctuary in Monterey Bay;\nno drilling would be allowed off 99 percent of the\nCalifornia coast until after the year 2000; and\nno new drilling would be allowed anywhere off the coast\nuntil 1996, and then only in the most promising areas\nof the Santa Barbara Channel and the Santa Maria Basin\nand only after completion of studies by the NAS.\nThis option is built on two premises: first, that a\nscientific distinction can be made between lease sales off\nthese areas of southern California and the sales off\nnorthern California and Florida; and, second, that the\ndecision is responsive to the concerns expressed by the\nCalifornia Congressional delegation in your meeting with\nthem and in their proposals to the Interior Department in\n1986 and 1987.\nWith respect to the first premise, the NAS report to the\nTask Force clearly stated that \"the southwest Florida shelf\n(the area associated with Sale #116) comprises subtidal and\nnearshore habitats that are unique (emphasis added) within\nthe U.S. continental margin and provide refuge to a number\nof rare and endangered species. The NAS report also found\nthat the incremental risks of an oil spill associated with\nthe northern California sale (sale 91) were eight times\ngreater than the incremental risks of a spill associated\nwith either sale 116 or sale 95. In addition, the NAS found\nthat information concerning onshore socioeconomic impacts\nrelated to sale 91 was particularly lacking. Unlike in\nsouthern California, there is little onshore industrial\ninfra-structure now in place in the affected areas of\nnorthern California and the onshore effects of offshore\ndevelopment would be great.\nThe point is that distinctions can be made between sale 95\noff southern California and the other two sales. The area\nencompassed by sale 95 is not home to unique coral reefs or\nendangered species. In addition, because there is existing\noffshore development in state and federal waters near the\nareas proposed for earlier development, the incremental risk\nof an oil spill and the effects on onshore infrastructure\nare lower. Thus development in the recommended portions of\nsale area 95 is different in terms of environmental impact\nand scientific merit from development in sale area 91 or\nsale area 116.\nWith respect to the second premise, you may recall that\nduring your meeting with the California delegation\nCongressman Panetta mentioned several compromises he had\noffered to Secretary Hodel in 1986. The central feature of\nhis proposal was the creation of a buffer zone along most of\nthe California coast, stretching from six to thirty miles\noffshore, in which no drilling would take place. The only\ntwo areas of the coast for which Congressman Panetta did not\npropose a buffer zone were the Santa Maria Basin and the\nSanta Barbara Channel. Thus, this option is consistent with\nhis earlier recommendations. A map displaying Congressman\nPanetta's proposal is attached at Tab D.\nIn sum, then, this option is responsive to both the\nscientific and environmental concerns identified by the NAS\nand the concerns identified by the California delegation in\nyour meeting with them.\nOption for Florida\nO\nCancel sale 116 and exclude the area from consideration\nfor any lease sale until after the year 2000.\nConduct the additional oceanographic, ecological and\nsocioeconomic studies identified by the NAS, which\nshould be completed within 5 to 6 years.\nO\nBegin cancellation under federal law of existing leases\noff Florida and initiate discussions with the State of\nFlorida for its participation in a joint federal-state\nbuy-back of the leases under existing authorities\ncontained in the OCS Lands Act. Your budget already\ncontains $200 million in FY 1995 for purchasing these\nleases.\nNational Security Exemption\nO\nDictate that in the event the President determines that\nnational security requires development in these areas,\nhe would have the ability to direct the Interior\nDepartment to open the areas for development.\nAdvantages of Options\nStill allow relatively early drilling on promising\nsouthern California tracts. (The resource estimates\nfor the five basins in the Southern California Planning\nArea and an overview of resource estimates involved in\nthis OCS decision are found at Tab E.)\nDevelopment is underway in the areas where earlier\ndrilling would be permitted. These areas were not\nproposed for a buffer zone out 30 miles in the 1986\nproposal made by Congressman Panetta.\nCould alleviate pressures in Congress for the creation\nof ocean sanctuaries or permanent bans on leasing up\nand down the length of both the Atlantic and Pacific\nCoasts (as in the Boxer/Levine bill). This decision\ncould thus remove most of the sizable California and\nFlorida delegations from the national coalition that\nthreatens to jeopardize the entire OCS program.\nRecognize the political reality that no drilling is\nlikely to occur on California and Florida leases in the\nforeseeable future, given the clear disposition of the\nCongress on this matter.\nHave no adverse budgetary impact, as OMB has already\neliminated any projections of revenues from the sales\nfrom its budget receipt projections.\nRespond to NAS criticism that leasing always leads to\nfuture development without any subsequent analysis of\nenvironmental impacts.\nDisadvantages of Options\nO\nWill likely be strongly criticized by the oil and gas\nindustry.\nO\nDrilling in even selected areas off California may\nstill be strongly criticized by environmentalists and\nCalifornia political leaders.\nMay be impossible to reverse decisions or adopt a less\naggressive posture in the future even if energy\nsecurity concerns arise.\nCould encourage future efforts to ban development in\nareas not now the subject of controversy, such as the\nGulf of Mexico.\nSale 119 and Monterey Bay Sanctuary\nOption\nCancel sale 119 and adopt sanctuary proposed by NOAA.\nPermanently prohibit all oil and gas activities within\nthe sanctuary.\nAllow no development in the sale 119 area outside the\nsanctuary until after the year 2000.\nAdvantages of Option\nRecognizes that this area is a nationally significant\nand environmentally sensitive resource (e.g., it\nincludes the largest breeding ground for marine mammals\nin the lower 48 states).\nAcknowledges the strength of public opposition to\ndevelopment off this portion of central California and\nthe fact that a more restrictive legislative ban on oil\nand gas activities will likely be enacted (as with the\nCordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary off San\nFrancisco last year) if regulatory prohibitions are not\nimposed.\nDisadvantages of Option\nCould be questioned because it ignores the precedential\nvalue of acting without an extensive analysis of the\navailable scientific data.\nCould bolster arguments for a permanent ban on oil and\ngas activities off California and even Washington and\nOregon.\nWashington and Oregon -- Sale 132\nExclude the area off the two states from consideration\nfor the 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs. A\nstate-Interior task force has recommended cancellation\nof the sale through 1997 pending further studies.\nNorth Atlantic (George's Bank) -- Sale 96\nO\nCancel sale 96. (Note that the Boston Globe reported\nrecently that Interior was planning to cancel this\nsale.)\nO\nConduct additional studies, including studies designed\nto determine the area's true resource potential.\nRecommendations for OCS Program\nDevelop a legislative initiative to provide coastal\ncommunities directly affected by OCS development with a\ngreater share of the financial benefits of new\ndevelopment and with more voice in decision-making.\nCharge the Interior Department with undertaking a\nprogram to improve the information needed to make\ndecisions on OCS development. This program will\ninclude conducting the studies identified by the NAS\nand studies to explore new technologies to alleviate\nthe risks of oil spills and new oil and gas drilling\ntechnologies, such as submersible drilling rigs.\nDirect the Interior Department to ensure that future\nOCS five-year plans provide for better targeting of\nproposed sale areas to ensure that only areas with the\ngreatest resource potential are offered for sale.\nSummary\nThe option presented here will go far toward addressing the\nenvironmental concerns expressed about offshore drilling.\nIt would put most of the California coast and the sensitive\narea off the Florida Everglades off limits to oil and gas\ndevelopment until after the year 2000. It would provide\npermanent protection for the sanctuary at Monterery Bay. It\nwould suggest long delays for controversial sales off of\nWashington and Oregon and in George's Bank. Finally, it\nwould respond to the concerns expressed by the National\nAcademy of Sciences regarding the need for better\ninformation before offshore development occurs. Moreover,\nthe option provides needed reforms in the conduct of the OCS\nprogram: better targeting of future sales and greater\nassistance to the most heavily impacted coastal communities.\nThis option should clear away an array of pending\nenvironmental concerns and allow a more carefully targeted\nand scientifically sound offshore development program to go\nforward with renewed confidence and less resistance.\nPHOTOCOPY\nGB HANDWRITING\nIII. NEXT STEP\nIn your meetings with the California Congressional delegation,\nsome of the members hinted at the possibility of further\nconsultations prior to the announcement of your decision, and\nthis should be considered. Governors Martinez and Deukmejian\nhave also been intensely interested in this decision, and some\ntype of personal consultations or discussions with them should\nalso be considered. The chairmen and ranking members of relevant\nSenate and House committees could also be consulted.\nIV. DECISION\nApprove\n18-18-90\nDisapprove\nOther\nINDEX TO ATTACHMENTS\nTab A\nSummary of Options for California and Florida\nSales\nTab B\nSummary of Options for Sale 119 and Monterey\nBay Sanctuary\nTab C\nMap Showing Leases in Santa Maria Basin and\nSanta Barbara Channel off Southern\nCalifornia Considered for Earlier\nDevelopment\nTab D\nMap Showing Proposal by Congressman Panetta\nfor Buffer Zone off Southern California\nTab E\nResource Estimates for Basins in Southern\nCalifornia Planning Area and Overview of\nResource Estimates\nOCS TASK FORCE OPTIONS SUMMARY\nCALIFORNIA\nFLORIDA\n18\"\nNorthern California\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n80°\nPlanning Area\nSALE AREAS\n28°\n26°\nSALE 91\nFLORIDA\n27\nWest Pain\nBeach\nATLANTIC OCEAN\n-27°\nSale 116 Motor\n26*\n26*\nMiami\nSAN\nCentral California\nFRANCISCO\nSALE\nThe\nPlanning Area\n25\nKey Largo\n25°\nPACIFIC OCEAN\nSALE 119\nDry\nTertuges\nKey West\nEastern\n24\nGulf of Mexico\n24\"\nSan Late Chiese\nPlanning Area\nSenta\nBerbers\nLOS ANGELES\no\n60\n100\nHaveng\n23\nSTATUTE MILES\n23*\nContinue\nSALE 95\nCoass\n, mide\n5\nCUBA\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n80°\nSAN-\nDIEGO\nSCALE 1,8,000,000\nSouthern California\nPlanning Area\n14\"\nEarliest\nGeneric Options Identified by the Task Force.\nPossible\nStaff, and Affected Agencies:\nDrill Date\n1.) Defer Presidential decision until after\npublication of National Energy Strategy.\n1992\n2.) Cancel sale at this time and defer decision\nuntil studies identified by NAS completed.\n1993\n3.) Defer sale until 1992-1997 five-year plan and\noffer only selected tracts off California.\n1993-95\n4.) Defer sale until 1997-2002 five-year plan.\n1997\n5.) Defer sale until after next two five-year plans.\n2002\n6.) Cancel sale and impose permanent ban except\nfor national security requirements.\nUnknown\nOption Offered for Discussion:\nSale 91: Defer any sale until after 2000\n2000\nSale 95: Defer sale in majority of area until after 2000.\n2000 for most;\nOffer most promising areas in Santa Barbara Channel\n1996 for\nand Santa Maria basin (91 tracts) only upon completion\nselected\nof NAS-recommended environmental studies in 1995.\nareas\n(The California coast has 13,000 tracts; thus more than\n99% of this coast would be protected until after 2000)\nSale 116: Defer any sale until after 2000. Proceed with\nbuyback of existing leases. Begin discussions with\n2000\nstate of Florida about participating in lease buyback.\nDelays proposed for all 3 sales would be subject to national security exemption.\nSale 119: Central California\nBackground:\nA related issue to the three sales considered by the Task Force is the\ndisposition of lease sale 119 off central California. This area is subject to a\nCongressional moratorium on pre-leasing activities in the current fiscal year.\nThe sale area, shown on the map below, stretches from north of San Francisco\npast Monterey Bay to Big Sur. In 1988, Congress mandated the creation of a\nNational Marine Sanctuary in Monterey Bay. NOAA has proposed to designate\nan area for the sanctuary covering about 2,200 square miles -- including\nsignificant portions of the sale area. The proposed NOAA rule would prohibit\noil and gas exploration and development activities within the sanctuary. Such\na ban is not mandatory within a marine sanctuary. Sanctuaries in several\nother parts of the country are not subject to such a ban, although others off\nthe California coast are.\nThere are two issues now pending related to sale 119. First is whether to\npublish the NOAA rule adopting the sanctuary boundaries and banning oil and\ngas activities in the sanctuary. The second is whether to cancel the sale, and\nfor how long. Many members of Congress and the public are expecting a\ndecision on sale 119 to be announced concurrently with a decision on the\nother California lease sales.\n126°\n124°\n122°\nCENTRAL CALIFORNIA\nPLANNING AREA\nBODEGA BAY\nSALE 119\nMonterey Bay\nProposed Marine Sanctuary\n38°\nSAN CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO\n38°\nOAKLAND\nSAN JOSE\nSANTA CRUZ\nMONTEREY\nBIG SUR\n0\n50\n100\n36°\nMILES\n36°\n126°\n124°\n122°\nOptions:\nAdopt NOAA sanctuary boundaries but allow oil and gas development\nAdopt oil and gas ban in sanctuary but proceed with sale outside sanctuary\nboundaries.\nAdopt NOAA proposal and cancel sale 119 until 19971\nAdopt NOAA proposal and cancel sale 119 until 2000¹\n1\nWith national security exemption as proposed for sales 91, 95, and 116.\n124°\n123°\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nSan Simeon Pt\nMost Prospective Tracts\n3% of Total\nPt. Estero\nMorro Bay\nSanta Maria and\nSan Luis Obispo\nSanta Barbara Areas\nSanta Maria\nSanta\n35\nNI 10-2\nNI 10-3\nBarbara\n35\nSanta Maria\nPt Sa/\nChannel\nPurisma Pt\nCALIFORNIA\nSouthern California\nLompoc\nPt. Conception\nSanta\nPlanning Area\nGaviota\nBarbara\nPitas Pt\n6\nVentura\nTHIC hards\nLOS ANGELES\n:\nPt. Dume\n34\nNI 10-6\nRuck\nSanta Monica\n34\nSan\nMiguell\nSanta\nLong Beach\nSanta\nCruz\nPt. Fermin\nRese le:\nSanta\nBarbara to\nLaguna Beach\nDana Pt\n8B\nBock\nSanta\natalina S\nOceanside\nBA\nSan\n33\nNieclas\nNI 10-9\nSan\nLa Jolla\n33\nClemerte]s\nSan Diego\n8D\nBO\nProspective Blocks\nSale 95 Area Boundary\nBE\nN\nMexico\n32\nBASIN\nNUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE BLOCKS\nNH 1 10\n32\nSanta Maria\n45\nSanta Barbara\n42\nTOTAL\n87\nO\n50\n100\n31\nNH 11-\nSTATUTE MILES\n31\nNH11-4\n124°\n123°\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nMMS/06/90\n124°\n123°\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nSan Simeon Pt.\nPt. Estero\nMost Prospective Tracts\nMorro Bay\n3% of Total Southern California\nSan Luis Obispo\nPlanning Area Tracts\nSanta Maria\nSanta\n35\nNI 10-2\nNI 10-3\n35\nBarbara\nSanta Maria\nPt. Sal\nChannel\nSouthern California\nPurisma Pt\nCALIFORNIA\nLompoc\nPt. Conception\nPlanning Area\nSanta\nGaviota\nBarbara\nLos Angeles\nPitas Pt.\nTOTAL NUMBER OF BLOCKS\n6\nVentura\nWilmington\nLOS ANGELES\nSouthern California Planning Area = 5661\nPt. Dume\n34\nNI 10-6\nSanta Monica\n34\nSale 95 Area = 1317\nLong Beach\nPt. Fermin\nPROPRIETARY\nLaguna Beach\nDana Pt.\n6B\nSan Diego\nOceanside\nBA\n33\nNI 10-9\n33\nLa Jolla\nSan Diego\n6D\nProspective Blocks\nBO\nSale 95 Area Boundary\n6E\nN\nMexico\nBASIN\nNUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE BLOCKS\n32°\nNH 11-10\n32\nSanta Maria\n38\nSanta Barbara\n40\nLos Angeles\n30\nWilmington\n35\nSan Diego\n26\n0\n50\n100\n31\nTOTAL\n169\nNH 11-\nSTATUTE MILES\n31\nNH11-4\n124°\n123°\nMMS/05/90\n122°\n121°\n120°\n119°\n118°\n117°\nSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING AREA\nRESOURCE POTENTIAL\nOil\n%\nGas\n%\n(billion of\ntrillion\nof\nbarrels) Total\ncubic ft)\nTotal\nSanta Maria Basin\n.62\n40.5\n.57\n23.2\nSanta Barbara Basin\n.32\n20.9\n.90\n36.6\nWilmington Basin\n.06\n3.9\n.09\n3.7\nLos Angeles Basin\n.06\n3.9\n.08\n3.2\nSan Diego Basin\n.47\n30.8\n.82\n33.3\nOVERVIEW OF U.S.\nRESOURCE POTENTIAL\nOil\n%\nGas\n%\n(billion of\ntrillion\nof\nbarrels) Total\ncubic ft)\nTotal\nTotal U.S. Resources\n34.80\n263.00\nEntire OCS\n8.20\n23.6\n74.00\n28.1\nANWR\n3.20\n9.2\n6.90 (1)\n2.6\nExisting Fla. Leases\n.14\n.4\n.30\n.1\nExisting S. Cal. Leases (2)\n.34\n1.0\n.80\n.3\nSale 116\n.11\n.3\nSale 95\n.23\n.7\n.46\n.2\nSale 91\n.20\n.6\n.41\n.2\nSale 119\n.16\n.5\n.26\n.1\nPHOTOCOPY\nGB HANDWRITING\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nJune 5, 1990\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nI have often stated my belief that development of oil and gas\non the outer continental shelf (OCS) should occur in an\nenvironmentally\nsound, and manner. have accepted this recommention\nI have received the report of the interagency Task Force on\nLeasing and Development off the coasts of Florida and\nCalifornia, and have concluded that further steps to protect\nthe environment are needed.\nToday, I am announcing my support for a moratorium on oil and\ngas leasing and development in Sale Area 116, Part II, off\nthe coast of Florida, Sale Area 91 off the coast of northern\nCalifornia, Sale Area 119 off the coast of central\nCalifornia, and the majority of Sale Area 95 off the coast of\nsouthern California, until after the year 2000.\nThe combined effect of these decisions is that the coast of\nsouthwest Florida and more than 99 percent of the California\ncoast will be off limits to oil and gas leasing and\ndevelopment until after the year 2000.\nOnly those areas which are in close proximity to existing oil\nand gas development in Federal and state waters, comprising\nless than 1% of the tracts off the California coast, may be\navailable before then. These areas, concentrated in the\nSanta Maria Basin and the Santa Barbara Channel, will not be\navailable for leasing in any event until 1996 -- and then\nonly if the further studies for which I am calling in\nresponse to the report of the National Academy of Sciences\nsatisfactorily address concerns related to these tracts.\nI am also approving a proposal that would establish a\nNational Marine Sanctuary in California's Monterey Bay and\nprovide for a permanent ban on oil and gas development in the\nsanctuary, and I am asking the Secretary of the Interior to\nbegin a process that may lead to the buyback and cancellation\nof existing leases in Sale Area 116, Part II, off southwest\nFlorida.\nFinally, I am today directing the Secretary to take several\nsteps to improve the OCS program and respond to several of\nthe concerns expressed by the Task Force. My goal is to\ncreate a much more carefully targeted OCS program -- one that\nis responsive to local concerns, environmental concerns, and\nto the need to develop prudently our nation's domestic energy\nresources.\n-2-\nWhile I believe that a leaner OCS program will ultimately be\nmore effective, Americans must recognize that the OCS program\nis a vital source of fuel for our growing economy / My desire\nis to achieve a balance between the need to provide energy\nfor the American people and the need to protect unique and\nsensitive coastal and marine environments.\n#\n#\n#\n#\n1\nDRAFT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFor Immediate Release:\nJune 5, 1990\nFACT SHEET:\nPRESIDENTIAL DECISIONS CONCERNING OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON\nTHE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF\nThe President today announced a series of decisions related\nto oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf\n(OCS). The decisions are intended both to respond to the\nreport of the interagency OCS Leasing and Development Task\nForce and to provide more general direction for the future of\nthe OCS program.\nThe President believes that the nation needs to find a\nbalance between development of important domestic energy\nresources and protection of the environment in sensitive\nareas.\nOil and Gas Leasing and Development Off the Coasts of\nSouthwest Florida and California:\nThe Task Force has devoted a year of study, analysis and\npublic consultation to the question of oil and gas leasing\nand development in Sale Area 116 off the coast of Southwest\nFlorida and Sale Areas 91 and 95 off the California coast.\nOne of the key findings of the Task Force was that\n\"additional time and effort are needed before environmental\nconcerns can be resolved in a manner that provides an\nacceptable balance\" between the goals of domestic energy\ndevelopment and environmental protection.\nSpecifically, the Task Force found that:\nthe southwest Florida shelf comprises subtitle and\nnearshore habitats that are unique within the U.S.\ncontinental margin and provide refuge to a number of\nrare and endangered species;\nthe incremental risk of oil spill associated with the\nnorthern California sale (Sale Area 91) was far greater\nthan that associated with the other two sales;\ninformation concerning the onshore socioeconomic effects\nof oil and gas development was particularly lacking for\n2\nDRAFT\nthe Florida sale (Sale Area 116) and the northern\nCalifornia sale (Sale Area 91);\n0\nsome additional studies, in response to the report of\nthe National Academy of Sciences, are needed before the\nSecretary of the Interior makes leasing decisions in any\nof the three areas.\nThe President today recommended that:\nO\nNo oil and gas development take place in Sale Area 116\noff the coast of southwest Florida until after the year 2000;\nO\nThe Department of the Interior initiate discussions with\nthe State of Florida and with lessees to facilitate purchase\nof existing leases in this area, and the Secretary of the\nInterior initiate procedures that could lead to cancellation\nof the existing leases pursuant to section 5 of the OCS Lands\nAct.\nO\nNo oil and gas development take place in Sale Area 91\noff the coast of northern California until after the year\n2000;\nO\nNo oil and gas development take place in Sale Area 95\nsouth of the Santa Barbara Channel until after the year 2000;\nO\nDevelopment in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria\nbasin, areas which are close proximity to existing oil and\ngas development in Federal and State waters, be delayed at\nleast until after January 1, 1996 -- which will allow for the\nadditional studies recommended by the National Academy of\nSciences to be conducted. Development could then go forward\nif deemed prudent in light of the results of the studies;\n0\nNo oil and gas development take place in any of the\nareas considered by the Task Force until the concerns\nidentified by the National Academy of Sciences have been\nsatisfactorily addressed and the studies recommended by the\nAcademy have been conducted.\nThe task force also put forward several general\nrecommendations which the President today adopted:\nO\nAir quality controls should be adopted for the\nCalifornia OCS which are substantially the same as those\napplied on shore. This is consistent with the position taken\nby the Administration in Clean Air Act negotiations with the\nSenate.\no\nSteps should be taken immediately to improve the ability\nof industry and the Federal government to respond to oil\nspills from any source.\n3\nDRAFT\nO\nFederal agencies should develop a plan to reduce the\nprobability of oil spills from all sources, including and\nespecially those from tanker traffic. This plan should\ninclude moving oil tanker routes further away from sensitive\nareas in the Florida Keys and the Everglades, as previously\nproposed.\nSale Area 119: Central California\nConsideration of leasing and development off the northern and\nsouthern California coasts by the Task Force has been\naccompanied by strong concern about the prospect of oil and\ngas leasing and development in Sale Area 119, off the coast\nof central California. The area includes several unique\nmarine and coastal resources in the proposed Monterey Bay\nNational Marine Sanctuary.\nThe President today recommended that no oil and gas\ndevelopment take place in Sale Area 119 before the year 2000.\nIn addition, the President today approved a proposal by the\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to\nprovide permanent protection to the Monterey Bay National\nMarine Sanctuary. The proposal includes a permanent ban on\noil and gas development within the sanctuary.\nIn combination with my decisions on areas studied by the task\nforce, adoption of these recommendations will mean that:\nO\nNo oil and gas development will occur off 99 percent of\nthe California coast until after the year 2000.\nPermanent protection will be provided in one of the\nmost sensitive coastal areas.\nIn the remaining one percent, no oil and gas development\nwill occur until 1996, if at all, and will occur only\nupon completion of further environmental studies and\nsteps taken to address environmental concerns.\nOther Controversial Sale Areas: Oregon, Washington, and\nGeorges Bank\nThe Department of the Interior has also convened a task force\nto address environmental concerns related to leasing and\ndevelopment in Sale Area 132, off the coast of Oregon and\nWashington. The task force has recommended cancellation of\nthese sales pending further study. Today, the President\nrecommended that any oil and gas development in this area be\ndelayed until after the year 2000, pending completion of the\nfurther studies recommended by the task force.\n4\nDRAFT\nA similar controversy has arisen over oil and gas development\nin Sale Area 96, the Georges Bank area off the coast of New\nEngland. The President today recommended that any\ndevelopment in this area be delayed until after the year\n2000, pending further study to determine the true resource\npotential of the area.\nGeneral OCS Program Recommendations:\nThe President believes that if the balance between\ndevelopment of our domestic energy resources and protection\nof unique and sensitive coastal and marine environments is to\nbe struck, the OCS program in the future will need to be\ntargeted much more carefully toward areas with truly\npromising resource potential; sensitive to the concerns and\nneeds of local areas affected by OCS development; and\nbuttressed by information adequate to ensure that oil and gas\ndevelopment can go forward in an environmentally sound\nmanner.\nTherefore, the President today directed the Department of the\nInterior to take three broad steps in order to improve the\nOCS program:\nO\nThe Department should target all future OCS five-\nyear plans to ensure that only those areas with the greatest\nresource potential and the least environmental risk are\noffered for sale. This will necessarily result in much\nsmaller and more carefully selected blocks being offered in\nthe future.\nO\nThe Department should develop a legislative\nproposal to allow coastal communities directly affected by\nOCS development to receive a greater share of financial\nbenefits of new development and to have a stronger voice in\nOCS decision-making.\nThe Department should begin immediately to develop\na program to improve the adequacy of the information needed\nto make OCS decisions. This should include the information\nidentified in the report of the National Academy of Sciences\nto the Task Force, as well as studies to explore new\ntechnologies to alleviate the risks oil spills.\nConclusion:\nTaken together, these decisions represent a dramatic response\nto the concerns which have been expressed about oil and gas\ndevelopment on the outer continental shelf. They will\nprovide significant protection for areas which have aroused\n5\nDRAFT\ngreat controversy off the coasts of Florida, California,\nWashington, Oregon, and New England.\nThe OCS program which will result from the approach outlined\nby the President will be leaner, more effective, and more\nfocused on producing the greatest results with the least\nenvironmental disruption.\nThe President has long been committed to offshore oil and gas\ndevelopment where it can be accomplished in an\nenvironmentally sound manner. The President's intention is\nthat this set of decisions will allow the OCS program now to\nmove forward with less controversy, fewer threats posed to\nthe environment, and sound footing from which to develop\nAmerica's most promising energy resources.\n# # # #\nOCS\nSUMMARY\nThe final report of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing and\nDevelopment Task Force was delivered to the White House on\nJanuary 5. The report is the work of the Cabinet-level Task\nForce, comprised of Secretaries Lujan (who served as chairman)\nand Watkins, Administrators Reilly and Knauss and Director\nDarman, announced by you in your budget message to Congress in\nFebruary 1989. In that budget message you charged the Task Force\nto study and resolve environmental concerns regarding the\npotential adverse effects of three OCS lease sales scheduled for\nFY 1990 that were delayed: Sale 116 off the southwestern coast\nof Florida; Sale 95 off southern California; and Sale 91 off\nnorthern California.\nIn developing options for your consideration, the Task Force\nexamined the issues of air quality, the risks of oil spills,\nchanges in onshore infrastructure and land use due to these lease\nsales, and the impacts of these sales on protected lands and\nspecies and other wildlife, commercial fishing, water quality,\nand tourism and recreation. The Task Force commissioned an\nanalysis of the adequacy of scientific and technical information\navailable for making leasing decisions in the three areas from\nthe National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report concluded\nthat there was a lack of some oceanographic, ecological or\nsocioeconomic data for each area, although the study is subject\nto some criticism for calling for an unreasonable level of data.\nIn its eight-month process the Task Force solicited extensive\ninput from the public and members of Congress. The public and\nmost elected officials in the two states are generally opposed to\nthe sales. The Task Force also uncovered wide dissatisfaction\nwith the OCS program, as local residents who are most affected by\nOCS activities often do not receive commensurate financial\nbenefits and feel they have little opportunity for participation\nin decision-making.\nThe Task Force presented specific options for decisions on each\nsale (four options for the Florida sale and three for each\nCalifornia sale). The Task Force made no recommendations among\nthe various options. Additional options have been developed by\nWhite House staff and members of the Task Force independently.\nThe Task Force also presented, and staff has developed, general\noptions to be addressed in connection with these three sales and\nthe overall OCS program.\nDecisions are also currently pending on Sale 119 in the San\nFrancisco-Monterey area of central California and the creation of\na national marine sanctuary in Monterey Bay, which as proposed by\nthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would\ncover the most valuable part of the Sale 119 area; NOAA's\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\n(George Bush Library)\nDocument No.\nSubject/Title of Document\nDate\nRestriction\nClass.\nand Type\n03a. Report\nFrom Outer Continental Shelf Leasing and Development Task\nn.d.\n5\nForce\nOptions section redacted (1 pp.)\nCollection:\nRecord Group:\nBush Presidential Records\nOpen on Expiration of PRA\nOffice:\nChief of Staff, White House Office of\n(Document Follows)\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\nBy\nIP\n(NLGB)\non\n5/12/05\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nWHORM Cat.:\nFile Location:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nDate Closed:\n12/10/2004\nOA/ID Number:\n29163-008\nFOIA/SYS Case #:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nAppeal Case #:\nRe-review Case #:\n2005-0426-S\nAppeal Disposition:\nP-2/P-5 Review Case #:\nDisposition Date:\nAR Case #:\nMR Case #:\nAR Disposition:\nMR Disposition:\nAR Disposition Date:\nMR Disposition Date:\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\n(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\n(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nagency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\n(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\n(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\n(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly-unwarranted invasion of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\n(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of\n(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\ngift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\n(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\nPRM. Removed as a personal record misfile\nproposal would also ban all oil and gas activities within the\nsanctuary. Given the proximity of these areas to the two delayed\nCalifornia sales and the commonality of the issues, it is\nappropriate to make these decisions at the same time as decisions\non the lease sales are made. Four options have been developed by\nWhite House staff calling for combined actions on Sale 119 and\nthe Monterey Bay sanctuary.\nSet forth below are summaries of the options developed by the\nTask Force and the White House staff. A full presentation of\nthose options, and supporting discussion of the respective pros\nand cons, is found in the accompanying decision memorandum. The\ndecision memorandum also provides more extensive information\nregarding the Task Force deliberations.\nTask Force Options for Sales\nOption A\nFlorida -- Cancel sale and defer leasing decision until\nadditional oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic data\nidentified by NAS have been collected.\nAs for existing leases in same area, proceed with exploration and\ndevelopment decisions under normal procedures.\nCalifornia\nA-1 -- Proceed with preparations for lease sales but defer\nleasing decisions until the additional oceanographic (southern\nCalifornia) and socioeconomic (southern and northern California)\ndata identified by NAS have been collected.\nA-2 -- Cancel sales and defer subsequent leasing decisions\nuntil additional oceanographic (southern California) and\nsocioeconomic data (southern and northern California) identified\nby NAS have been collected.\nOption B\nFlorida -- Cancel sale and exclude area from consideration for\nthe 1992-1997 OCS five-year leasing program.\nAs for existing leases, begin discussions with Florida and\nexisting lessees to facilitate state purchase of leases.\nCalifornia -- Defer leasing decisions on both sales until 1992-\n1997 five-year program and, if sales go forward, offer tracts\nonly in limited geographic areas (Santa Maria and Outer San Diego\nBasins off southern California and Eel River Basin off northern\nCalifornia).\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\n(George Bush Library)\nDocument No.\nSubject/Title of Document\nDate\nRestriction\nClass.\nand Type\n03b. Report\nFrom Outer Continental Shelf Leasing and Development Task\nn.d.\nP/5\nForce (2 pp.)\nCollection:\nRecord Group:\nBush Presidential Records\nOffice:\nChief of Staff, White House Office of\nOpen on Expiration of PRA\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\n(Document Follows)\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nBy W (NLGB) on 5/12/05\nWHORM Cat.:\nFile Location:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nDate Closed:\n12/10/2004\nOA/ID Number:\n29163-008\nFOIA/SYS Case #:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nAppeal Case #:\nRe-review Case #:\n2005-0426-S\nAppeal Disposition:\nP-2/P-5 Review Case #:\nDisposition Date:\nAR Case #:\nMR Case #:\nAR Disposition:\nMR Disposition:\nAR Disposition Date:\nMR Disposition Date:\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\n(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\n(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nagency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\n(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\n(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\n(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\n(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of\n(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\ngift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\n(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\nPRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.\nOption C\nFlorida -- Cancel sale and exclude area from consideration for\nboth 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs.\nAs for existing leases, begin discussions with Florida regarding\nits purchase of leases and initiate procedures that could lead to\ncancellation of existing leases under OCS Lands Act.\nCalifornia -- Cancel sales and exclude areas from consideration\nfor 1992-1997 five-year program.\nOptions for Sales Not Identified by Task Force\nA. Proceed with sales in Florida and California under existing\nOCS Lands Act process.\nB. Cancel sales in Florida and California and exclude from\nconsideration for 1992-1997 program at this time; if additional\nstudies to obtain data identified by NAS show leasing possible in\nenvironmentally sensitive manner, add tracts to 1992-1997\nprogram.\nC. Delay decisions until final National Energy Strategy\nsubmitted in December.\nD. Cancel sales and impose permanent ban on lease sales in\nthree areas.\nOther Actions Recommended by Task Force (to Address Environmental\nConcerns in Areas of Sales)\nA. In southern and northern California, establish air quality\ncontrols for OCS activities that are substantially equivalent to\nthose applied onshore. The Minerals Management Service already\nhas efforts underway to develop a new proposed rulemaking to\nachieve this objective.\nB. In northern California, evaluate the effects of OCS\nactivities on commercial fisheries and institute measures to\nreduce conflicts.\nC. In both Florida and California, revise requirements for OCS\noil spill contingency plans to improve their effectiveness and\ndevelop improved means of assessing the risk of damage from oil\nspills\nD. Institute a Coast Guard study of the feasibility of moving\ntanker routes away from sensitive areas.\nE.\nDirect the Secretary of the Interior to study restructuring\nof revenue-sharing and decision-making provisions of OCS Lands\nAct and OCS program.\nOptions for Sale 119 and Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary\nA. Cancel Sale 119 and adopt NOAA proposal for sanctuary,\nincluding prohibition on oil and gas activities.\nB. Adopt NOAA proposal for sanctuary and proceed with Sale 119\nonly in areas outside sanctuary.\nC. Limit sanctuary to smaller size, prohibiting oil and gas\nactivities within it, and proceed with Sale 119.\nD. Adopt NOAA proposal for size of sanctuary, but allow oil and\ngas activities within it subject to regulation, and proceed with\nSale 119.\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\n(George Bush Library)\nDocument No.\nSubject/Title of Document\nDate\nRestriction\nClass.\nand Type\n04. Report\nIssue report on Outer Continental Shelf Leasing and\n4/9/90\nP/S\nDevelopment (21 pp.)\nCollection:\nRecord Group:\nBush Presidential Records\nOffice:\nChief of Staff, White House Office of\nOpen on Expiration of PRA\nSeries:\nSununu, John, Files\n(Document Follows)\nSubseries:\nIssues Files\nBy H (NLGB) on 5/12/05\nWHORM Cat.:\nFile Location:\nOuter Continental Shelf (1990) [1]\nDate Closed:\n12/10/2004\nOA/ID Number:\n29163-008\nFOIA/SYS Case #:\n1998-0004-F[1]\nAppeal Case #:\nRe-review Case #:\n2005-0426-S\nAppeal Disposition:\nP-2/P-5 Review Case #:\nDisposition Date:\nAR Case #:\nMR Case #:\nAR Disposition:\nMR Disposition:\nAR Disposition Date:\nMR Disposition Date:\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\n(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\n(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nagency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\n(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\n(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\n(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\n(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of\n(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\ngift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\n(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\nPRM. Removed as a personal record misfile\nApril 9, 1990\nI. ISSUE\nA decision on the options presented by the Outer\nContinental Shelf (OCS) Leasing and Development Task\nForce is needed.\nII. BACKGROUND\nIn your February 9, 1989 budget message to Congress,\nhonoring a pledge made during the campaign, you imposed a\nmoratorium on three controversial OCS lease sales\nscheduled for fiscal year 1990 -- Sale 116 in the Gulf of\nMexico off the southwestern coast of Florida, Sale 95 off\nthe coast of southern California, and Sale 91 off the\ncoast of northern California -- pending a review of the\nenvironmental effects of the sales by a Cabinet-level\ntask force. The California sales had been subject to\nCongressionally-imposed moratoria in 1987, 1988 and 1989\nand the Florida sale became subject to a Congressionally-\nimposed moratorium last year.\nThe Secretary of the\nInterior, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the\nOffice of Management and Budget, the Administrator of the\nEnvironmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of\nthe National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration\n(NOAA) were named as members of the Task Force and\ncharged with making recommendations on the future of the\nlease sales within one year.\nIn fulfilling its charge, the Task Force conducted\nbriefings and public workshops in Florida and California,\nhearing from over 1,000 witnesses, met with Members of\nCongress from those two states and other parts of the\ncountry, and received over 11,000 written comments. It\nalso commissioned and received a study from the National\nAcademy of Sciences (NAS) addressing the adequacy of the\nscientific and technical data available on which\ndecisions on the three lease sales could be made.\nThe Task Force delivered its report to the White House on\nJanuary 5.\nIII. DISCUSSION\nA. POLICY GOALS\nThe OCS leasing program is governed by the Outer\nContinental Shelf Lands Act and overseen by the Minerals\nManagement Service (MMS) within the Interior Department.\n(A description of the program is found at Appendix A.)\nThe program has been the focus of controversy in recent\nyears over the environmental effects of offshore oil and\n2\ngas exploration and development. The controversy has\nresulted in yearly Congressional moratoria on certain\nlease sales, pre-lease planning activities, and even some\npost-lease exploration. The policy goal of the decisions\non these three lease sales, which will inevitably affect\nthe entire OCS program, must be to reconcile the need for\nadequate domestic energy supplies through robust\nexploration and development on the OCS and the need for\nlong-term protection of sensitive environments and\necosystems. An additional goal must be to regain\nExecutive branch control of the OCS program by addressing\nCongressional and local concerns and removing their\nstranglehold on the program.\nB. RESOURCE POTENTIAL\nThe decisions with respect to these three lease sales\nmust take into account their relationship to the total\noil and gas resources of the U.S. The MMS has developed\nmean estimates for the undiscovered economically\nrecoverable (using existing technology) oil and gas\nresources derivable from (1) the U.S. as a whole,\nincluding the OCS, (2) the entire OCS, (3) the Arctic\nNational Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (ANWR), (4) the\nexisting leases in the three planning areas in which\nthese sales are located and (5) the leases involved in\nthe sales. Appendix B is a table setting forth the\nrelative oil and gas resources available from all of\nthese areas. As you can see, the three sales represent\nabout 1.6 percent of all U.S. oil resources and about 0.4\npercent of all U.S. gas resources, equivalent to about\none-sixth of the resources available from ANWR.\nIt should be noted that the Office of Management and\nBudget (OMB) has already eliminated any projected\nrevenues from these three sales from its budget\nprojections. The decisions on the sales therefore have\nno immediate impact on, and should not be considered as\nan issue relevant to, the budget.\nC. RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO OCS\nPROGRAM\nThe relationship of state and local governments and their\nconstituents to the OCS program is also a relevant issue.\nThe federal government's perspective on the OCS program\nis premised on its role in the nation's overall energy\nstrategy, with its national security and economic\nimplications. In administering the OCS program the\nfederal government also exercises its national\nstewardship functions to manage and protect scarce and\nvaluable environmental resources on public lands.\n3\nState and local governments, on the other hand, represent\nmore parochial interests of the people who will\nexperience the direct impact of OCS development. Most of\nthe financial benefit of OCS leasing and development\naccrues to the federal government (states receive 100\npercent of revenues from OCS leases within the first\nthree miles of shore, 27 percent of revenues from OCS\nleases three to twelve miles from shore, and nothing from\nleases further than twelve miles offshore). Further, the\nresidents of the localities most directly affected by OCS\nactivity may or may not benefit proportionately from the\nrevenues received by the state if those revenues are\nspent elsewhere. Despite the opportunities granted for\nparticipation in the OCS process, persons affected by\nfederal OCS decisions often feel that their interests\nhave not been represented; this likely accounts for the\ncontentious nature of many recent OCS decisions.\nAlthough not a subject directly addressed by the Task\nForce, the concept of restructuring the OCS program to\ngive states a greater share of the revenues arose during\nyour January meeting with the members of the Task Force.\nMany members of the Administration believe, however, that\nthis type of local revenue-sharing will not be enough to,\nengender support by Atlantic and Pacific coastal states\nand localities for the OCS program.\nD. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) STUDY\nThe Task Force asked the NAS to study the adequacy of the\nscientific and technical data available on which\ndecisions for the three lease sales could be made. The\nNAS report concluded that generally there are not\nadequate oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic data\non which to base a lease/no lease decision, but that the\nadequacy varies by lease sale. The NAS conclusions are\nas follows:\nSale\nOceanographic Ecological\nSocioeconomic\nFlorida\nmarginal\ninadequate\ninadequate\nN. Cal.\nadequate\nadequate\ninadequate\nS. Cal.\ninadequate\nadequate\ndoubtful\nThe NAS recommended that no decision be made on\nproceeding with the lease sales until further studies are\nconducted, although it did not specifically identify\nthose studies that must be conducted in order to have a\ncomplete data base. There is no clear consensus as to\nthe length of time needed to conduct adequate studies.\nStaff of the Task Force estimates that it could take as\nlong as five to six years in Florida and as little as two\nto three years in northern California.\n4\nQuestions regarding the value of the NAS study and the\nweight it should be accorded have been raised. Some\nallege that the strictest academic \"peer review\" standard\nwas used to assess the available data, which would be far\ngreater than the standard generally used in making\ngovernmental decisions. Such a standard could be seen as\nunreasonable in a real world context, imposing a burden\nthat could rarely if ever be sustained, particularly when\nweighed against the costs necessary to meet such a\nstandard and the benefits of the OCS program.\nThe NAS was also requested to study the adequacy of\nresource estimate methodology used by the MMS. The NAS\nreport concluded that the MMS methodology for developing\nresource estimates is adequate and sound.\nE. LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS\nAs noted in Section II above, in preparing the report the\nTask Force conducted local meetings in Florida and\nCalifornia. These were designed to give the Task Force\nthe opportunity to discuss the proposed sales with state\nand local officials, scientists, business leaders and\nother interested groups and with members of the general\npublic. Demonstrations in opposition to leasing were\nheld at each of the nine public workshops. In addition,\nthe vast majority of persons who spoke at the meetings\nwere adamant in their opposition to new leasing. Local\nopposition to leasing does not appear to have lessened,\nand in fact may have strengthened. An August California\nPoll found that 75 percent of those surveyed opposed more\ndrilling off the coast, the highest level of opposition\nyet expressed in a statewide poll.\nState and local officials are also generally unanimously\nopposed to the sales. In Florida, the entire\nCongressional delegation, Governor Martinez and all local\nelected officials oppose new leasing, and in fact also\noppose exploration on existing leases off southwestern\nFlorida. Both California Senators oppose new leasing, as\ndo virtually all local elected officials. The California\nCongressional delegation is split on the issue, although\nalmost all affected coastal representatives oppose new\nleasing. Governor Deukmajian is generally supportive of\nfurther offshore development.\nF. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS\nIn analyzing the three lease sales, the Task Force\nidentified and addressed six specific environmental\nconcerns: (1) air quality; (2) the risks of oil spills;\n(3) the impact of OCS activity on commercial fishing;\n5\n(4) the effects of OCS activity on protected lands and\nspecies; (5) water quality; and (6) socioeconomic\nimpacts. The general findings of the Task Force with\nrespect to these six areas and the cumulative effects are\nfound at Appendix C.\nG.\nRELATIONSHIP OF DECISIONS ON SALES TO SALE 119 IN\nCENTRAL CALIFORNIA AND CREATION OF MONTEREY BAY SANCTUARY\nClosely related to your decision on these three lease\nsales are decisions on the future of Sale 119 off central\nCalifornia and the creation of a national marine\nsanctuary in the area around Monterey Bay.\nThe area to be covered by Sale 119, which is still in its\npre-leasing stages, stretches from San Francisco\nsouthward to the northern tip of Monterey Bay. This\nincorporates sensitive areas off the coast of Big Sur,\nCarmel and Monterey, resulting in public opposition to\nthis sale that is at least as strong as that to Sales 95\nand 91 and perhaps even stronger. The sale was\noriginally scheduled for March 1991, but due to the\nimposition of a moratorium by Congress and delays in the\npre-sale process, a sale probably could not occur until\nthe middle of the 1992 fiscal year at the earliest. In\naddition, pre-sale analysis would likely reduce the area\nto be covered by the sale. OMB has already eliminated\nprojected revenues from this sale from its FY 1991 budget\nprojections and has also eliminated revenues from a FY\n1994 lease sale in central California. Appendix B shows\nthe oil and gas resources available from Sale 119. As\nyou can see, such oil and gas resources are less than\nthose available from Sales 95 and 91 and slightly more\nthan those available from Sale 116.\nThe creation of a national marine sanctuary in the\nMonterey Bay area was mandated by Congress in 1988.\nFulfilling its responsibility under the legislation, NOAA\nhas proposed designating an area for the sanctuary\ncovering approximately 2,200 square miles, about a third\nof which is within the area to be covered by Sale 119,\nincluding more than two-thirds of the most promising\ntracts. NOAA has also proposed regulations that prohibit\nall oil, gas and mineral exploration and development\nactivities within the proposed sanctuary. Other\nactivities are limited but not proscribed. A ban on oil\nand gas activities is not mandatory within a marine\nsanctuary; in fact, sanctuaries in other parts of the\ncountry are not subject to this prohibition, although\nbecause of the sensitivity of the issue in California\nother sanctuaries off its shores do bear such bans\n6\n(including one ban that was Congressionally imposed in\n1989).\nIV. OPTIONS\nA. Decisions on Lease Sales\nThe Task Force presented eleven separate options for the\nlease sales, three for the Florida sale and four for each\nCalifornia sale. White House staff and the individual\ndepartments represented on the Task Force have also\nidentified other options, including those at the extreme\nends of the spectrum. All of the options for the lease\nsales are set forth below (Task Force options first,\nfollowed by options developed by staff) and accompanied\nby supporting discussion of their pros and cons. It\nshould be noted that the members of the Task Force agreed\nonly to include within their final report options that\nall members could agree would be acceptable, so some of\nthe new options that have been developed may have been\nconsidered by the Task Force and may be supported by\nindividual members.\nTask Force Options for Sales\nOption A\nSale 116 (Florida)\nCancel the sale and defer subsequent decision until the\nadditional oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic\ndata identified by the NAS have been collected.\nAs for existing leases, proceed with exploration and\ndevelopment decisions under normal procedures.\nSales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern\nCalifornia)\nThe same language is included for Option A for both\nCalifornia sales. A separate decision is needed for each\nsale, however.\nA-1 -- Proceed with preparations for the lease sales\nbut defer final decisions until the additional\noceanographic (southern California) and socioeconomic\n(southern and northern California) data identified by the\nNAS have been collected.\nA-2 -- Cancel the sales and defer subsequent decisions\nuntil the additional oceanographic (southern California)\n7\nand socioeconomic data (southern and northern California)\nidentified by the NAS have been collected.\nDiscussion -- Under these options, leasing in both\nFlorida and California could occur as part of the 1992-\n1997 five-year plan, which was to be proposed by\nSecretary Lujan in March but which is being delayed\npending your decision on these sales. These are pro-\npetroleum industry options that signal the\nAdministration's continued commitment to OCS development\nand affirm to the greatest extent the Interior\nSecretary's discretion over OCS decisions, consistent\nwith current law. They recognize that the OCS is a\nnational resource the development of which will not be\nunduly subject to local citizens' views. They will\nlikely meet with strong criticism, however, particularly\non the ground that a decision to cancel the sales of the\nleases, followed almost immediately by the inclusion of\nthe same leases in the next five-year program, smacks of\nhypocrisy. This criticism can be partially rebutted by\nresponding to the environmental concerns identified by\nthe NAS and imposing additional environmental\nrestrictions on new leases.\nAllowing exploration and development to proceed on the\nFlorida leases using normal procedures avoids any\ninterference with current lessees and any \"takings\"\nproblems that could arise.\nOption B\nSale 116 (Florida)\nCancel the sale and exclude the area from consideration\nfor the 1992-1997 five-year program.\nAs for existing leases, proceed with exploration and\ndevelopment decisions under normal procedures but begin\ndiscussions with the state and existing lessees regarding\nthe state's purchase of the leases.\nSales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern\nCalifornia)\nIn southern California (Sale 95), defer a decision on the\nsale until the 1992-1997 five-year program, conducting\nadditional oceanographic and socioeconomic studies; if\nthe sale goes forward, offer tracts only in the Santa\nMaria and San Diego Outer Basins.\nIn northern California, also defer a decision until the\n1992-97 five-year program, conducting additional\n8\nsocioeconomic studies; if the sale goes forward, offer\ntracts only in the Eel River Basin.\nDiscussion -- These are compromise options. Leasing\ncould occur off California after 1992 (which, given\ncurrent Congressional moratoria and the time required to\ncomplete the studies arising from the NAS report, may be\nas soon as leasing could occur in any event), but would\nbe restricted to areas where development would be less\nintrusive and to smaller areas so that environmentally-\nsensitive features such as the Channel Islands National\nPark and Marine Sanctuary could be protected. Leasing\noff Florida would be delayed for at least seven years\nuntil 1997. The petroleum industry should find this an\nacceptable option, as it does not preclude development.\nThere is less certainty that the environmental community\nwill accept it as a reasonable compromise. The delays\nshould, however, allow the Interior Department to\ncomplete the studies identified by the NAS, and this can\nbe used to rebut environmental concerns.\nBeginning discussions with Florida regarding its purchase\nof the existing leases imposes some burden on it to\nprotect its tourist industry and natural resources, which\nis reasonable given that the state has also allowed\ndevelopment in this area. This could open the door to\nmoves by the environmental community to cancel the\nleases, however.\nOption C\nSale 116 (Florida)\nCancel the sale and exclude the area from consideration\nfor both the 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs.\nAs for existing leases, begin discussions with the state\nand existing lessees regarding the state's purchase of\nthe leases and have Interior initiate procedures that\ncould lead to cancellation of the existing leases (which\nwould suspend further exploration or development).\nSales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern\nCalifornia)\nSimilar language is included for Option C for both\nCalifornia sales. A separate decision is needed for each\nsale, however.\nCancel the sales (and the next scheduled sales in both\nareas) and exclude the areas from consideration for the\n1992-1997 five-year program.\n9\nDiscussion -- These are the most pro-environmental\noptions identified by the Task Force, precluding lease\nsales off Florida until at least 2002 and off California\nuntil at least 1997. They do not constitute the\npermanent ban on leasing in the three areas that\nenvironmentalists and most local residents seek, however.\nThese options could alleviate pressures in Congress for\nthe creation of ocean sanctuaries or permanent bans on\nleasing.\nThe move to cancel the existing leases off Florida would\nbe particularly welcomed by environmentalists and would\nrespond to one of the criticisms of the NAS, namely that\nleasing always leads to future development without any\nsubsequent analysis of environmental impacts. There are\nquestions about the ability of the Interior Department to\ncancel the leases under current law, however, which\nrequires a finding of existing environmental harm.\nThese options are also the ones on which the FY 1991\nbudget is based, including provision in the budget for\nrepurchase in FY 1995 of the existing leases off Florida,\nvalued at the lesser of the fair market value of the\nleases or the amount of lease bonuses paid plus\ninvestment to date (approximately $200 million), so no\nadverse budgetary impact would result if this course were\nchosen.\nOptions Not Identified by Task Force\nA. Proceed with lease sales under existing OCS Lands Act\nprocess. Pre-lease activities would be reactivated at\nthe point at which they were stopped by the Presidential\nmoratorium.\nDiscussion -- This is one of the two extreme options.\nIt would essentially reject both the NAS study and the\nreport of the Task Force and proceed with \"business as\nusual.' It could be perceived as a complete sell-out to\nthe petroleum industry and would likely be severely\ncriticized by the environmental community and probably by\nthe general public, particularly in the two affected\nstates.\nB. Cancel the sales, excluding them at this time from\nthe 1992-1997 five-year program, and directing that\nfuture decisions on lease sales in these areas will be\nmade only after the data identified as deficient by the\nNAS have been identified and collected; if the studies\nsubsequently show that leasing can be done in an\nenvironmentally acceptable manner, add the tracts to the\n1992-1997 five-year program.\n10\nDiscussion -- This is a new option proposed by the\nEnergy Department. It allows decisive action on the\nsales and the OCS program as a whole; it also\nacknowledges that a more objective and scientific basis\nis needed for decision-making. It avoids an arbitrary\ndecision to defer leasing or delete tracts from\nconsideration for leasing by holding the door open for\nlater inclusion of the leases in the 1992-1997 five-year\nprogram; as such, it could thwart the efforts of those\nwho would use a cancellation decision as the precedent\nfor seeking further arbitrary bans on OCS activities\nelsewhere. It would require an amendment to the 1992-97\nfive-year program at some point, which could focus\nCongressional and environmental opposition to leasing.\nC. Delay any decision on the sales until the National\nEnergy Strategy (NES) is finalized and submitted in\nDecember 1990; concurrently with the announcement of that\ncourse of action, make the OCS Task Force report public.\nDiscussion -- This option alleviates the difficulties\nposed by making these decisions in the vacuum created\nwithout knowing how they and the future of the OCS\nprogram relate to the NES. It also sends a signal that\nthe President intends to balance environmental concerns\nwith energy security and economic requirements. The\npetroleum industry may be disconcerted by the perceived\nsignal that further development is being significantly\nslowed, although the strong link to the NES should offset\nindustry uneasiness. Delaying the sales also adversely\naffects the time before which these resources can be\ntapped (assuming that some development goes forward).\nThis option also delays any guidance to the Interior\nDepartment and the MMS for their development of the next\nfive-year plan and other pending decisions regarding the\nOCS. The release of the report will remove some of the\nmystery surrounding the decisions, allow the public to\nengage in the dialogue and focus attention on the\nnecessity for further scientific (by collection of the\ndata identified by the NAS) and economic (by the NES)\nanalysis of the decisions and the overall domestic energy\nsituation. The delay in the decision and release of the\nreport would likely be opposed by the California and\nFlorida Congressional delegations (especially Senator\nWilson), who want a decision to be made soon.\nD. Cancel the sales and impose a permanent ban on lease\nsales in the three areas.\nDiscussion -- This option recognizes the political\nreality that no drilling is likely to occur on these\nleases in the foreseeable future, given the clear\n11\ndisposition of the Congress on this matter. OMB has\nalready eliminated any projections of revenue from these\nsales from its budget receipt projections. Implementing\nthis option could remove the sizeable California and\nFlorida Congressional delegations from the nationwide\ncoalition that threatens to jeopardize the entire OCS\nprogram or at least block some future activities. It\ncould, however, also be used as \"evidence\" by those\nseeking permanent bans on all offshore drilling\nactivities, even on existing leases, that no OCS\nactivities are environmentally prudent.\nB. Decisions on Other Actions Recommended to Address\nEnvironmental Concerns in Areas of Sales and Deficiencies\nin OCS Program.\nThe Task Force also developed recommended options for\naddressing various environmental concerns that arise in\nthe three sale areas (and to a lesser extent throughout\nthe entire OCS). These options relate to (1) air quality\nstandards offshore California, (2) conflicts with\ncommercial fishing, particularly in northern California,\n(3) oil spill contingency planning and response\ncapabilities, (4) tanker traffic, (5) safeguards for\nprotected lands and species, (6) protection of water\nquality, and (7) steps to alleviate adverse socioeconomic\neffects of OCS activities. In addition, your staff\ndeveloped an option for study of increased state and\nlocal participation in the OCS program. This concept,\nincluding the notion of increased sharing of revenues\nfrom the OCS with local communities impacted by OCS\nactivities, has been discussed publicly by Secretary\nLujan and other Interior officials publicly in recent\ndays. All of these options are set forth in Appendix D.\nC. Decisions on Sale 119 and Monterey Bay Sanctuary\nBecause of the reasonable proximity of the Sale 119 area,\nincluding the Monterey Bay area, to the Sale 95 and 91\nareas, and because of the common issues surrounding oil\nand gas activities in all three areas, decisions on the\nfuture of Sale 119 and the size and scope of activities\nwithin the new Monterey Bay Sanctuary should also be made\nat this time.\nA. Cancel Sale 119 and proceed with the pending NOAA\nproposal establishing the size of, and the prohibitions\non oil and gas activities within, the sanctuary.\nDiscussion -- NOAA asserts that the entire proposed\nsanctuary area is nationally significant and\nenvironmentally sensitive. For example, excluding any of\n12\nthe proposed lease sale area would exclude the largest\nbreeding ground for marine mammals in the lower 48\nstates, a biologically irreplaceable resource.\nCancelling the sale would also acknowledge the strength\nof the public opposition to oil and gas activities off\nthis portion of central California. NOAA further argues\nthat, if prohibitions on oil and gas activities are not\nimposed through regulations, a more restrictive\nlegislative ban will likely be enacted, as occurred last\nspring with the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary\noff San Francisco. The impact of such a decision where\nthere has not been the extensive analysis of available\nscientific data that accompanied the Task Force report\nmust be assessed, however, as must the possibility that\nthis could bolster arguments for a permanent ban on oil\nand gas activities off California and even Washington and\nOregon.\nB. Proceed with the NOAA proposal for the sanctuary,\nincluding the prohibitions on oil and gas activities, and\nproceed with Sale 119 only in areas outside the\nsanctuary.\nDiscussion -- The proposed sanctuary boundaries were\ndrawn to provide a buffer to protect the area's sensitive\nresources. Therefore, oil and gas activities could\nproceed outside the sanctuary without causing, from\nNOAA's viewpoint, any undue risk. This option\nacknowledges that selected coastal areas are unique and\ntherefore require that special measures be implemented to\nproetect them. At the same time it recognizes that oil\nand gas activities can proceed in an environmentally safe\nmanner near sensitive areas.\nC.\nLimit the sanctuary to a smaller size recommended by\nthe Department of the Interior, prohibiting oil and gas\nactivity in this reduced area, and proceed with Sale 119.\nDiscussion -- The Interior Department proposal for the\nsanctuary is approximately 60 percent smaller than the\nNOAA proposal and preserves the tracts with the greatest\nresource potential. Interior argues that it adequately\nprotects valuable marine resources without unduly\nhindering development, but recognizes that certain areas\nare so unique that no oil and gas activity within them is\nappropriate. NOAA argues that it would exclude some of\nthe most biologically significant areas and expose the\nAdministration to charges that the sanctuary boundaries\nwere gerrymandered to permit oil and gas activities.\nD. Proceed with Sale 119 and the NOAA proposal for the\nsize of the sanctuary; do not prohibit oil and gas\n13\nactivity within the sanctuary but only subject it to\nregulation like other activities.\nDiscussion -- This position provides protections to the\nentire area NOAA has identified as sensitive, but\nemphasizes the view that oil and gas activity can occur\ncoincident with sound environmental protection. It is\nlikely to result, however, in a legislative ban on oil\nand gas activities. If not, the current debate on oil\nand gas drilling would be taken up again during NOAA's\nrulemaking process to implement allowable oil and gas\nactivities in the sanctuary.\nAPPENDIX A\nDESCRIPTION OF OCS PROGRAM\nThe OCS leasing program is governed by the Outer Continental\nShelf Lands Act and overseen by the Minerals Management\nService (MMS) within the Interior Department. The sale and\ndevelopment of leases under the Act is accomplished in five-\nyear programs, which begin with thorough analyses to assess\nthe potential reserves derivable from leases and any problems\nthat would accompany their development. That process starts\nmore than two years before the beginning date of a five-year\nprogram. The MMS undertakes twelve separate steps as part of\nthis evaluative process, preparing two drafts of the program\nand an environmental impact statement (EIS). The public is\ngiven opportunity to comment at three points in the process\nand Congress is also formally notified before a program is\nfinally approved.\nFollowing final approval of a five-year program, typically\nanother 24 to 26 months are required before any lease sale can\ntake place. During this period another EIS specific to the\nlease sale area is prepared and additional opportunities for\npublic comment are provided, along with an opportunity for\ncomment by the governor of the state offshore which the sale\nis to occur. Once a sale occurs, exploration of the leases\ncan take anywhere from 1 to 10 years and development and\nproduction can occur over several decades.\nThe three lease sales studied by the Task Force are all part\nof the 1987-1992 five-year program. The sales were at\ndifferent stages when the moratoria were imposed, and could\nhave been held within five to sixteen months. The initial\nsteps for the 1992-1997 five-year program were scheduled to\ncommence in March with Secretary Lujan's release of a proposal\nfor comment, but that has been delayed pending decisions on\nthese three lease sales. The program development process is\nexpected to take until the summer of 1992, with the first sale\ntentatively scheduled for September 1992. That schedule is\nnot mandated by statute or administrative rule or regulation,\nhowever, and could be delayed. A delay of up to six months\nwould not significantly affect the timing of the program and\nthe early sales, as only one to two months would be lost.\nAPPENDIX B\nRESOURCE POTENTIAL\nOil\n%\nGas\n%\n(billion of\ntrillion\nof\nbarrels) Total\ncubic ft)\nTotal\nTotal U.S. Resources\n34.80\n263.00\nEntire OCS\n8.20\n23.6\n74.00\n28.1\nANWR\n3.20\n9.2\n6.90 (1)\n2.6\nExisting Fla. Leases\n.14\n.4\n.30\n.1\nExisting S. Cal. Leases (2)\n.34\n1.0\n.80\n.3\nSale 116\n.11\n.3\n---\n---\nSale 95\n.23\n.7\n.46\n.2\nSale 91\n.20\n.6\n.41\n.2\nSale 116\n.16\n.5\n.26\n.1\n(1) Although ANWR is estimated to contain 6.9 trillion cubic\nfeet of gas, the production of natural gas from ANWR is\nconsidered by some to be uneconomical.\n(2) None of the area off northern California has yet been\nleased.\nAPPENDIX C\nFINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS\nAir Quality. Offshore oil and gas drilling activities produce\nthe same types of emissions as onshore activities, with the\nnotable addition of emissions from support vessels and\nhelicopters. Meteorological conditions may also exist that\nconsistently drive offshore emissions toward land,\nparticularly off California. Despite this, the Task Force\nfound that emissions controls currently imposed by the MMS on\noffshore drilling are less stringent than those imposed on\nsimilar activities onshore. The effects of offshore emissions\nare of greatest concern in southern California due to the\ngenerally already poor air quality; there are more limited\nconcerns with respect to northern California also. All of the\nTask Force options for California include strengthening\nemissions standards. The Senate version of the Clean Air Act\namendments currently contains Administration-supported\nlanguage requiring such stricter OCS emissions standards.\nOil Spill Risks. The Task Force found that the risks posed to\ncoastal and marine resources by oil spills are significant and\nthat the environmental impact of a major OCS spill would be\nsevere. It concluded, however, that the increased chances of\na major oil spill caused by OCS drilling activities in the\nthree areas are small (in the case of Florida and southern\nCalifornia, only a 1 percent greater risk, and in the case of\nnorthern California an 8 percent greater risk) compared to the\nrisk of a spill caused by existing activity, such as non-OCS\ntanker and barge traffic. The Task Force found that coastal\nand marine resources warrant greater protection from possible\noil spills, whatever their source, than is currently provided.\nCommercial Fishing. Commercial fishing is a vital economic\nactivity in all three areas, especially off southern and\nnorthern California. OCS activities pose a variety of\nconflicts between the petroleum and fishing industries,\nincluding competition for available space at sea and for port\nspace onshore. There are also concerns about the loss or\ndestruction of habitat due to the effects of OCS activities\nand the significant risks posed by oil spills. The Task Force\nconcluded that many of these conflicts can be resolved or\nlargely mitigated through the recommended use of joint\ncommittees comprised of representatives of the petroleum and\nfishing industries in areas where OCS activities are planned.\nProtected Lands. Each of these three areas has unique\nprotected lands, most notably the mangrove-coral reef system\nin the Everglades and Florida Keys. The Task Force found that\nthese sensitive and highly valuable areas now receive only the\nsame level of protection as that in ordinary areas but that\nthey warrant additional consideration and heightened\nmanagement.\nProtected Species. Each of these three areas is inhabited by\nspecies that have been placed under the protection of federal\nstatutes, most notably the endangered manatees off Florida.\nThe Task Force concluded that existing protections are\nsufficient to protect these species so that a delay in leasing\ncannot be justified on this basis alone.\nWater Quality. OCS activities can have various impacts on the\nwater quality near rigs and platforms. Such activity is\ncurrently regulated by EPA under the Clean Water Act through\nthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The Task\nForce found that this regulation is adequate in the three\nareas. It noted, however (as did the NAS), that information\non the long-term effects of chronic discharges is lacking.\nSocioeconomic Impacts. OCS activities, though offshore, have\nsignificant socioeconomic impacts onshore. The Task Force\nfound that these include the possibility of increased\nconflicts over land use and greater demands on infrastructure\nthat could force changes in the character of an area. Tourism\nand recreation can also be adversely affected, although the\nTask Force found that this does not appear to be a sufficient\nbasis for delaying the lease sales. The Task Force concluded\nthat in these three areas such conflicts can be substantially\nreduced through better consultative relationships among the\npetroleum industry, government (especially state and local\ngovernments) and other affected parties in planning and\ncoordinating the onshore activities of OCS lessees.\nCumulative Effects. The Task Force concluded that, although\nmany of the environmental effects of OCS oil and gas\nactivities, taken individually, are acceptable, collectively\nthey could result in unacceptable changes to the local\nenvironments in or near the three sale areas unless new\nmeasures are taken to control or mitigate such effects.\nThe Task Force recognized the substantial conflict that often\nexists between the goals protecting the coastal and marine\nenvironments and maintaining the quality of life in coastal\nareas, on the one hand, and the goals of promoting energy\nsecurity and economic growth on the other. The Task Force\nfound no easy way to resolve this conflict. Based on its\nreview of available information, the Task Force concluded that\nadditional time and effort are needed before environmental\nconcerns can be resolved in a manner that provides an\nacceptable balance between these conflicting goals.\nAPPENDIX D\nOPTIONS FOR OTHER ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL\nCONCERNS AND DEFICIENCY IN OCS PROGRAM\nA.\nAir Quality. Establish air quality controls for the OCS\nareas offshore California that are substantially\nequivalent to those applied onshore.\nDiscussion -- Although the real impact of any emissions\nfrom offshore drilling or production platforms and the\nvessels and helicopters that serve them may be\nnegligible, it is perceived as a substantial problem.\nThe perception is exacerbated by the fact that air\npollution is the single most dramatic environmental\nproblem in southern California and that the standards for\noffshore activities are not subject to EPA control but to\nMMS oversight and have not always been consistent. The\nMMS has efforts underway to develop a new proposed\nrulemaking to achieve this objective.\nB.\nCommercial Fishing. In Northern California, reevaluate\nthe effects of OCS activities on the commercial fishing\nindustry and institute measures to reduce conflicts\nbetween the petroleum and fishing industries.\nDiscussion -- The potential conflicts posed to the\ncommercial fishing industry in northern California were\nrepeatedly cited. This is a particular problem in that\nregion because of the heavy reliance of local economies\non fishing, the limited existing infrastructure for which\nthe commercial fishing and petroleum industries would\ncompete, and the relatively small population base that\ncould be severely affected by employment dislocations\nresulting from changes in commercial activity.\nC.\nOil Spill Contingency Planning and Response Capabilities.\nSteps should be taken to protect coastal and marine\nresources more adequately through the following:\n1.\nDevelop improved means of assessing the risks of oil\nspills;\n2.\nRevise requirements for OCS oil spill contingency\nresponse plans to improve effectiveness\n(particularly for the Everglades and Keys\necosystems), including requiring more analysis of\nresponse effectiveness as part of the pre-lease\nevaluative process and setting mandatory response\ntimes and minimum standards for equipment and\ntechnology to respond to spills;\n3.\nPrepare special oil spill contingency response plans\nfor protected lands, ensuring full coordination\namong the MMS, the Coast Guard, the petroleum\nindustry, and state and local governments;\n4.\nRevise regional guidelines for oil spill responses\nand increase the frequency of oil spill response\ndrills, involving both government and industry; and\n5.\nWhere feasible and environmentally preferable,\nrequire that oil produced on the OCS be transported\nby pipeline rather than ship.\nDiscussion -- The unique aspects of the Everglades and\nthe Florida Keys, including the only tropical coral reef\nin the continental U.S., justify revisions in planning\nand response capabilities for that area. Additional\nattention should also be given to northern California due\nto its extremely narrow continental shelf and normal\nhigh-sea conditions, which would make oil spills\ndifficult to contain with currently available technology\nand likely to reach environmentally-sensitive areas to\nthe south, such as Redwoods National Park or Point Reyes.\nD.\nTanker Traffic. Direct Coast Guard to study feasibility\nof moving tanker routes away from sensitive areas.\nDiscussion -- The recent California oil spill shows the\nneed to study tanker routes to see if travel further\noffshore and away from sensitive areas is feasible. The\nCoast Guard has been at work on a proposal that would\nprovide for International Maritime Organization action to\nmove tanker and other major vessel traffic further away\nfrom the coral reefs off Florida.\nE.\nProtected Lands and Species. Defer particularly\nsensitive protected lands from development or establish\nrequirements to ensure the maximum practicable protection\nand mitigation of impacts. In addition, provide greater\nmanagement attention to avoiding conflicts between OCS\nactivities and protected species.\nDiscussion -- Given that certain lands have already been\nconsidered so unique as to warrant protection by the\nfederal government (including national parks and marine\nsanctuaries), consideration of setting aside those lands\nfrom development is not a radical additional step. At\nthe very least, special requirements to preserve those\nlands or mitigate any possible impacts from OCS\nactivities is consistent with the assessment of their\nprotected character. Similarly, preserving rare or\nendangered species through special attention from the\nmanagers of the OCS program appears reasonable and not\nunduly burdensome.\nF.\nWater Quality. The MMS should initiate research into the\nlong-term effects of OCS activity on the marine\nenvironment and water quality, particularly such\npractices as the chronic discharge of drilling fluids.\nIn sensitive environments, special mitigation programs to\nreduce potential adverse effects should be considered.\nDiscussion -- Given the scarcity of data on the long-\nterm effects of OCS activities, further study is\njustified. Because the potential effects of such\npractices as chronic discharges of drilling fluids are\ncurrently unknown, special protection of those marine\nenvironments that are identifiable as sensitive through\nmitigation measures is reasonable until better data\nbecome available.\nG.\nAdverse Socioeconomic Effects. The MMS should note local\nconcerns and ordinances relating to the siting of onshore\nfacilities stemming from OCS activities in stipulating\nthe conditions for lease development, such as considering\na requirement for the consolidation of onshore\nfacilities. In addition, the MMS and NOAA should play a\ngreater mediative role between industry and local\ngovernments to mitigate the adverse effects of this\nincreased onshore development.\nDiscussion -- The significant impact of OCS activities\non onshore development and the economic and social lives\nof local residents should not be underestimated. This is\nexacerbated by the general feeling of local residents\nthat they have little voice in the decision-making\nprocess. Greater sensitivity to local concerns and\nexisting priorities for development and its control could\nbe accomplished at very little cost to the federal\ngovernment through increased attention to such matters by\nthe MMS. Such actions as requiring consolidated onshore\nfacilities could have positive effects on land use\nconflicts and infrastructure demands. At the very least,\nfederal agencies should play the role of \"broker\" to\nmediate between the competing interests of industry and\nlocal communities.\nH.\nRestructuring of OCS Program. Direct the\nSecretary of the Interior to begin a study that would\nlead to proposals for amendments to the OCS Lands Act in\norder to restructure the revenue-sharing and decision-\nmaking provisions of the legislation so that state and\nlocal governments will have a greater voice in the OCS\nprogram.\nDiscussion -- The lack of financial benefits to the\npeople most affected by OCS activities and the limited\nparticipatory role in the actual decision-making process\nfor OCS development have been noted as at least partial\nsources of the controversies currently surrounding these\nsales and the entire program. Tasking Secretary Lujan to\nstudy these issues with a goal of amending the underlying\nlegislation could have a positive impact on these sales,\nlessening some of the furor. It would more conceivably\nbe a method to address concerns expressed by Congressmen\nand others from areas in which OCS development is\nfavorably viewed on the whole but where additional\nincentives may be needed to avoid repetitions of current\nproblems. It also is the logical and fair approach to\nbalancing more equitably federal and local interests.\nThe nature and extent of authority given to state and\nlocal governments will need to be carefully considered,\nhowever, with the goal being to maintain the OCS program\nas a federal authority. Interior Department officials,\nincluding Secretary Lujan, have alluded to increased\nfederal revenue-sharing with local communities in recent\npublic remarks. The responses to such overtures have not\nbeen particularly positive, with reaction from some\nquarters that such action will not be sufficient to\novercome opposition to OCS activities on other grounds.\nThe result might be a reduction in federal revenues\nwithout a significant reduction in opposition."
}