Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
702453
label
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702453
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29164-001
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Issues Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702453
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5b3c0371adaea23c
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
foia Number:
1998-0004-F[1]
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
OA/ID Number:
29164
Folder ID Number:
29164-001
Folder Title:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
25
3
2
OFFICE OF THE MANAGE PRESIDENT STATES BUDGET OF THE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 10, 1989
MEMORANDUM TO GOVERNOR SUNUNU
DIRECTOR DARMAN
FROM
Robert E. Grady
lb
Here are some background materials on 3 issues we are
expected to discuss at tomorrow's 3pm meeting:
(1) The President's Task Force on OCS Exploration
and Drilling.
(2) Renewal of Bureau of Reclamation Water Contracts
in California.
(3) The Basel Convention Governing the Export of
Hazardous Waste.
Attachments
CC: David Q. Bates
FACT SHEET ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS)
LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE
Issue:
What position and strategy should the Administration adopt on
three controversial OCS oil and gas lease sales originally scheduled
for FY 1990?
Presidential Commitment:
The President is committed to continued OCS oil and gas develop-
ment in an environmentally sound manner. In October 1989 in
San Diego, the President spoke of his commitment:
"Let me say a word about my opinion on offshore drilling.
I do believe that development of our most promising oil and
gas reserves is called for, because continued domestic
production of oil and gas is essential to the national
security of the United States.
At the same time, I oppose drilling in those environmentally
sensitive areas where the risk of damage is too great. I have
said that I would delay any drilling under Lease Sale #91 in
northern California pending resolution of these environmental
concerns.
And let me add today that we should take a very close look at
those environmentally sensitive areas which would be available
for development under Lease Sale #95 here in southern Cali-
fornia before proceeding with that sale.
I agree that we
must subject these areàs to the most careful study before
allowing any drilling. I will not allow California's golden
shores, its most precious treasure, to be put at risk
Perhaps Irving Berlin said it best in his magnificent song,
'God Bless America.' He pictured pristine and majestic
mountains, clear air, and a clean ocean. That's the America I
want God to bless, too. And that's the America I'm committed
to fighting for as your President."
The President's OCS commitment is also summarized in Leadership
on the Issues:
"George Bush means business about cleaning up the Environment.
He will
[p]revent offshore drilling in certain tracts that
are particularly environmentally sensitive."
In his February 9th budget address, the President announced the
formation of a Federal task force to review three OCS oil and gas
lease sales (off southern and northern California, and southern
Florida) to determine if leasing should be cancelled or delayed. The
task force, chaired by Interior, includes Energy, Commerce, EPA, and
OMB. A report is due to the President by January 1, 1990.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Fact Sheet
On the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing and Development
n.d.
P/5
Task Force
Paragraph redacted (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By
H
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Background:
The Federal OCS oil and gas program, covering an area starting
3-9 miles offshore to a distance of about 200 miles, is responsible
for 12 percent of the Nation's oil production and 26 percent of gas
production. Thirty-one million acres are currently under lease,
generating about $2.7 billion in FY 1989 Federal receipts from both
lease sales and royalties. When the President established the task
force, OMB dropped from the Budget the expected FY 1990 bonus-bid
revenues of $457 million from the three sales.
Schedule:
The Federal OCS task force first met in March. Since then it has
held nine field workshops in the lease sale areas and two meetings
with members of Congress (most of the California and Florida
congressional delegations). In addition, there have been a number of
Federal inter-agency meetings in Washington.
In September, task force staff started drafting issue papers on
environmental concerns raised at the workshops, including oil spill
risks, water quality, air quality, fisheries impacts, and socio-
economic effects. In December, agency principals are scheduled to
review and approve the staff report, with the final report transmitted
to the President on January 1st.
The Three OCS Lease Sales Under Review:
In Building a Better America, the President stated:
"There are legitimate differences of opinion concerning the
environmental effects of OCS leasing in certain areas,
particularly sale #91 in the frontier area off northern
California, and sale #116 in the environmentally sensitive
area off southern Florida near Everglades National Park. In
addition, there are environmental concerns regarding sale #95
off southern California
"
Sale #91, Northern California: Sale #91 was originally scheduled
for October 1989, with expected bonus-bid receipts of about $126
million. It has been included in OCS leasing moratorium language in
the FY 1990 Interior appropriations bill. There are currently no
active OCS leases in this area.
The sale is opposed by both California Senators and the State's
coastal area representatives. Their objection is that the sale would
destroy the aesthetic nature of the northern California coast and
negatively affect tourism. In addition, development and the
possibility of a spill could hurt the lucrative northern coastal
fisheries industry. Task force staff appear inclined to recommend
cancelling the sale or imposing restrictions to allow leasing only in
gas-prone areas.
-2-
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Fact Sheet
On the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing and Development
n.d.
P/5
Task Force
Paragraphs redacted (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By
WHORM Cat.:
If
(NLGB) on
5/12/05
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
Sale #116, Southern Florida: Sale #116 (part II) in southern
Florida was originally scheduled for March 1990, with expected bonuses
of about $10 million. It has also been included in the FY 1990
Interior appropriations bill OCS leasing moratorium. In addition to
new leasing, 73 existing OCS leases in this sale area are included in
appropriations bill moratorium prohibiting exploration activity.
The entire Florida congressional delegation and all State and
local officials are opposed to both leasing off southern Florida and
development of the existing leases. Their objection is that any
development will have a strong negative effect on tourism, and that
any onshore infrastructure development to support OCS activity will
compete directly with this tourism. In addition, there is significant
concern that any OCS development will put at risk the Everglades and
surrounding environmentally sensitive areas. The southern Florida
area includes the only tropical habitat and living reef area in the
continental U.S. Everglades National Park has also been declared an
International Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage site.
Task force staff appear to favor recommending cancelling the
sale, and may also recommend a buy-out of or severe restrictions on
existing leases. Interior has authority to cancel existing leases if
significant environmental concerns cannot be satisfactorily resolved.
The costs of buying out the leases would be about $100 million -- by
law, the leaseholders would receive the lower of their costs incurred
to date or the fair market value of the resources.
Sale #95, Southern California: Sale #95 was originally scheduled
for March 1990, with expected bonus-bid receipts of about $320
million. An OCS leasing moratorium on this sale has also been
included in the FY 1990 Interior appropriations bill. This area is
the only area outside the Gulf of Mexico currently producing oil and
gas, with 139 existing leases in various stages of exploration and
development. However, unlike sale area #116, there is no apparent
serious consideration by opponents of OCS leasing to cancellation of
the existing leases in sale area #95 (such a buy-out could cost
billions of dollars).
While the California congressional delegation is somewhat split
on the merits of this sale, most coastal representatives and both
Senators oppose further leasing. Their principal objection centers
on the air-quality degradation that could occur with more OCS
development. Other concerns focus on the risks of oil spills,
increased coastal development to support OCS activity, and expanded
OCS development in the Santa Barbara channel increasing the hazard to
shipping and oil tanker traffic.
Interior is in the process of revising its California OCS air-
quality regulations and is working with EPA to significantly
strengthen air-quality requirements. The new rules would be very
similar to existing onshore requirements and essentially prohibit
unmitigated air emissions. The revised regulations would ameliorate
most, although probably not all, of the objections raised by local
and State officials about air quality from OCS development.
Task Force staff appear inclined not to object to new leasing in
sale area #95, as long as more stringent OCS air-quality regulations
are implemented.
-3-
Process to Final Report
September
Staff: Complete Analysis
October
Working Group / Principals: Draft
Findings and Recommendations
Receive NAS Report
November
Working Group Meeting on NAS Report
Draft Final Report
Working Group / Principals Changes
December
Principals Approve Report
Dec. 7th (tentative
Release Report to Printer -- Dec. 14th
(tentativ
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
03. List
Current Schedule of Upcoming OCS Lease Sales (1 pp.)
4/13/89
P/5
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Issues Files
By H (NLGB) on 5/12/05
Subseries:
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
APR I 3 1989
Current Schedule of Upcoming OCS Lease Sales
Est. Bonus
Bid
Existing
Sale No.
Name
Date
Receipts
Leases
($ in Mil.)
Sales Scheduled for FY 1989
122 West Gulf of Mexico
August 1989
129
yes
SUP
Supplemental
September 1989
10
139
Sales Scheduled for FY 1990
123 C. Gulf of Mexico
March 1990
271
yes
107 Navarin Basin (AL)
May 1990
30
*
121 Mid-Atlantic
May 1990
20
yes
*
96
N. Atl. (Georges Bank)
July 1990
10
101 St. George Basin (AL)
August 1990
20
125 W. Gulf of Mexico
August 1990
123
yes
114 Cook Inlet (AL)
September 1990
10
SUP
Supplemental
September 1990
10
494
Sales Scheduled for FY 1991
124 Beaufort Sea (AL)
February 1991
74
yes
131 C. Gulf of Mexico
March 1991
296
yes
*
119
Central California
April 1991
168
126
Chuckchi Sea (AL)
May 1991
95
yes
135 W. Gulf of Mexico
August 1991
129
yes
120 Norton Basin (AL)
September 1991
10
SUP
Supplemental
September 1991
10
782
Sales Scheduled for FY 1992
137 E. Gulf Mex. (N of 26 d) November 1991
29
yes
129
Shumagin (AL)
January 1992
10
*
134 N. Atl. (Georges Bank)
February 1992
10
139
C. Gulf of Mexico
March 1992
321
yes
108
S. Atlantic
April 1992
10
*
132
Washington-Oregon
April 1992
10
133
Hope Basin (AL)
May 1992
10
130 Navarin Basin (AL)
June 1992
25
--
W. Gulf of Mexico
August 1992
138
yes
SUP Supplemental
September 1992
10
573
Sales on Hold for Task Force Review
91 Northern California
126
116 E. Gulf Mex. (S of 26 d)
10
yes
95 Southern California
321
yes
457
*
Sale is likely controversial on environmental grounds. See table
on prelease activities of possibly controversial sales
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
04. List
Activity Planned by DOI/MMS on Environmentally
4/13/89
Controversial OCS Sales (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
By If (NLGB) on 5/12/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
APR 1 3 1989
ACTIVITY PLANNED BY DOI/MMS ON
ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTROVERSIAL OCS SALES
Prelease Activity Scheduled for FY 1989
121 Mid Atlantic (sale 5/90)
May 1989
Public Hearing on EIS and lease sale.
Sept. 1989
Issue Final EIS
119 Central California (sale 4/91)
May 1989
Identification of lease areas for EIS.
96 North Atlantic (sale 7/90)
Activities placed on hold by MMS. NRD reviewing with DOI.
134 North Atlantic (sale 2/92)
Sept. 1989
Request for interest in a lease sale.
Prelease Activity Scheduled for FY 1990
132 Washington-Oregon (sale 4/92)
November 1989 Request for interest in a lease sale.
March 1990
Call for information and nominations of
interest in leasing blocks.
June 1990
Identification of lease area for EIS.
121 Mid Atlantic (sale 5/90)
December 1989
Proposed notice of sale.
February 1990
Governor's comments on lease sale due.
April 1990
Notice of sale.
May 1990
Sale.
134 North Atlantic (sale 4/92)
January 1990
Call for information and nominations of
interest in leasing blocks.
April 1990
Identification of lease area for EIS.
119 Central California (sale 4/91)
March 1990
Draft EIS published.
July 1990
Public hearing on EIS and lease sale.
Sept. 1990
Final EIS published.
(continued on next page)
APR I 3 1989
Prelease Activity Scheduled for FY 1991
119 Central California (sale 4/91)
Nov. 1990
Proposed notice of sale published.
January 1991
Governor's comments on lease sale due.
March 1991
Notice of sale published.
April 1991
Sale.
134 North Atlantic (sale 2/92)
January 1991
Draft EIS published.
February 1991
Public hearing on EIS and lease sale.
July 1991
Final EIS published.
Sept. 1991
Proposed notice of sale published.
132 Washington-Oregon (sale 4/92)
March 1991
Draft EIS published.
April 1991
Public hearing on EIS and lease sale.
Sept. 1991
Final EIS published.
Prelease Activity Scheduled for FY 1992
134 North Atlantic (sale 2/92)
Nov. 1991
Governor's comments on lease sale due.
January 1992
Final notice of sale.
February 1992
Sale.
132 Washington Oregon (sale 4/92)
Nov. 1992
Proposed notice of sale published.
January 1992
Governor's comments due on lease sale.
March 1992
Notice of sale published.
April 1992
Sale.
LA TIMES 2/9/89
Bush to Delay Plan
for Oil Drilling and
Leasing Off Calif.
Would Fulfill Promise
By DAVID LAUTER, Times Staff Writer
But the money is of less impor-
WASHINGTON-Preaident Bush, in a innjor peace offering In environ-
tance to the new Administration
mentalists, will pledge in his nationally televised speech to Congress at 6
than is the emotional symbolism of
p.m. today to "Indefinitely postpone" oil drilling off the Northern
the decision. Bush, who spent three
California coast and to delay 8 mujor lease sale planned for Southern
hours Wednesday afternoon in a
California, a senior Administration aide said Wednesday.
relaxed review of his address to
The proposal. which environ-
Congress, plans to use tonight's
mental leaders halled DR a major
speech to demonstrate his resolve
victory, will all but kill the Ronald
to fulfill campaign promises, one of
Reagan Administration's long.
the most prominent of which was
stalled plan to greatly expand drill-
his pledge that "I am an environ-
mg in California waters. The plan.
montalist."
which for right years has been
OIL: President
Bush became the first President
'ought by California officials in
ever to pay an official visit to EPA
Congress and the courts, became a
major issue during the dall presi-
to Delay Leasing
headquarters Wednesday, attend-
ing Reilly's swearing in ceremony
dential campaign. Democrats
and telling officials there that the
charged then that Bush, If elected.
Continued from Page 1
American people "won't accept
would allow drilling to proceed.
covering the coast south of Santa
excuses any more and they won't
Bush, during the campaign.
Barbara.
accept finger-pointing. They want
pledged to re-examine Reagan's
Under Bush's plan, Lease Sale 91
us to get all the sides together and
drilling plans. Since then "the jury
would be "Indefinitely posiponed,"
find a way to achieve both" envi-
TaB been out on this issue with
effectively killing the proposal.
ronmental protection and economic
Bush." said Rep. Mel Levine (D.
Lease Sale 95 would be delayed
growth.
Santa Monica), il leading opponent
pending a report from a special task
Wall and other Reagan Admin-
of offshore drilling.
force that Bush will charge with
istration officials argued that more
"I've always felt that Bush's first
developing plans to balance envi-
drilling was needed to reduce U.S.
test on the environment would be
ronmental and enorgy needs.
dependency on oil imports. Oppo-
the California coastline," Levine
While the task force approach in
nents have countered that the risks
said. If Bush sticks to his plan to
theory would allow the Southern
of oil spills. air pollution from
forestall the lease sales, "it would
California sale to proceed at some
drilling equipment and esthetic
be a dramatic environmental victo-
future time, "the language of the
damage from the offshore rigs
"y," he said.
speech will Indicate that he's dis-
outweighed the benefits that in-
posed against the drilling." the
creased oil production might bring.
Fledge on Acid Rain
Ad ministration official said.
Unlike many other major envi-
In a second environmental decl-
Under the Roagan plan, the
ronmental issues, which require
sion, Bush will pledge in the speech
government would have begun
either substantial expenditures or
to send Congress legislation 10
leasing tracts to oil companies in
extensive negotiations with Con-
reduce acid rain emissions as part
the Lease Sale 95 area next year.
gress, the oil drilling issue can be
of a new clean Air proposal. The
The sales were budgeted to bring in
largely resolved by executive fiat.
pledge backs up a promise that
some $400 million in new federal
Congressional opponents of drill-
William K. Reilly, Bush's Environ-
"evenue in the fiscal year that
ing-one of the most emotional
mental Protection Agency chief,
begins Oct. 1. Delaying or killing
environmental Issues the federal
the plan will cause R "revenue hit,'
government confronts-have
made last week during his Senate
confirmation hearings and could
the official said.
fought a steady rear-guard action
to delay Watt's plan to vasuy
break a logjam that prevented
increase drilling in the Pacific off
significant modernization of clean
California, the Atlantic off New
AIr rules throughout Reagan's ten-
England and the Carolinas and off
ere.
Alaskan shores. And California
Administration sources cau.
state officials have taken the feder.
sioned, however, that Bush will not
al government to court on several
offer any new specifics on how to
occasions claiming that drilling
meet his clean air goals, leaving
plans, If carried out, would violate a
them open to further negotiations.
acries of environmental laws.
Under the Reagan Administra-
Jon's oll drilling plan, which was
bushed by James G. Wall, Reagen's
controversial first Interior secre-
.ary, the federal government pro-
posed two major new California oil
:eare sales, Lease Sale 91, off the
northern coast, and Lease Sale 95,
Please see 011, Page 13
3 TF: Cumulative Oil Spill Risks -- 9/22/89
Cumulative Oil Spill Risk
Cumulative Oil Spill Risk
1,000 Barrels or More - Offshore Southwest Florida
10,000 Barrels or More - Offshore Southwest Florida
Sale 116, Part II
Sale 116, Part II
15%
16%
Tankers with Imported OII
Tankers with Imported Oil
84%
85%
Overall Risk From All Sources: >99.5%
Overall Risk From All Sources: 98%
Cumulative Oil Spill Risk
Cumulative Oil Spill Risk
1,000 Barrels or More - Offshore Northern California
10,000 Barrels or More - Offshore Northern California
Sale 91
Sale 91
Base Case
Base Case
Tankers with Alaskan Oil
25%
Tankers with Alaskan Oil
20%
4%
67%
4%
Lightering
61%
Lightering
Overall Risk From All Sources: 96%
Overall Risk From All Sources: 85%
CUMULATIVE OIL SPILL RISK
CUMULATIVE OIL SPILL RISK
1,000 barrels or more - offshore Southern California
10,000 barreis or more - offshore Southern California
Lightering
5%
5%
Sale 95 Base Case
Lightering 5% 4% Sale 95 Base Case
Existing
Existing
Tankers with
Federal
Federal
22%
Alaskan Oil
33%
OCS
OCS
Tankers with
38%
Alaskan Oil
47%
8%
Existing
8%
State OCS
14%
Tankers with
Tankers with
15%
Imported Oil
Existing State OCS
Imported Oil
Overall risk from all sources: >99.5%
Overall risk from all sources: 94%
RMNE00SU: 05/89
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
0
0
2
2
L-48 CRUDE
4
4
9
9
8
ALASKA
8
10
INGL'S, GAIN, ETC.
11
12
12
IMPORTS
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
20
MMB/D
SUPPLY 710
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
05. Report
Fact sheet on the Central Valley Project, California Water
n.d.
P/S
Service Contract Renewals (3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
By of (NLGB) on 5/12/05
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
FACT SHEET ON THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA
WATER SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWALS
Issue:
Should the Department of the Interior prepare Environmental
Impact Statements prior to renewal of long-term water service
contracts in the Central Valley Project?
Background:
Water contracts set the price and quantity of water that will be
delivered through Federal water supply systems to the purchasers.
Currently water for irrigation in the Friant Unit is sold at
$3.50 per acre foot, a price that has been in effect since
fixed-price contracts were signed 40 years ago. This is
substantially below market value. The State Water Project, which
also provides water to central valley farmers, charges $40 to $50
per acre foot.
This tremendous Federal subsidy has reduced incentives for water
conservation, and the excess withdrawal and use of water
significantly reduces ambient water quality. It also distorts
the marketing of water by providing water for irrigation rather
than the alternative uses, such as water supply to
municipalities. On the other hand, Federal irrigation systems
were built to guarantee water for agricultural purposes, not
municipal water.
Four water contracts in the Friant Unit of the Central Valley
Project (CVP) are scheduled to expire on February 28, 1990. These
are the first contracts to come up for renewal since the Secretary
of the Interior agreed to renew the Orange Cove Irrigation District
contract for another 40 years last April. Orange Cove was viewed as
an important precedent since it was the first of almost 300 water
service contracts in the CVP to expire.
Renewal of Orange Cove and the remaining 27 contracts in the Friant
Unit of CVP are the subject of both a policy disagreement within
the Administration and a lawsuit, NRDC V. Houston, in which the
United States is the defendant.
Schedule:
Notices of intent to renew the four contracts must be published in
the Federal Register with a 60-day period for public comment. In
order to accommodate the final negotiation of contract terms and
the public comment period, a decision on the contracts must be made
very soon.
With respect to the lawsuit, the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California has yet to consider the merits of the case.
The pretrial scheduling order requires completion of discovery by
November 15, 1989, and filing of briefs in January 1990.
If no factual issues are in dispute, the case could be decided on
the motions for summary judgment, scheduled to heard on February
23, 1990. Otherwise, the case is scheduled for trial in June 1990.
Interagency Disagreement:
EPA disagreed with the Bureau of Reclamation's proposal to renew
the Orange Cove contract for 40 years at $15 per acre foot without
preparing an EIS. EPA referred the issue to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) for resolution under a provision of the
Clean Air Act in February 1989. CEQ accepted the EPA referral in
late March 1989.
However, Secretary Lujan agreed to renew the Orange Cove contract
for 40 years in April 1989, shortly before scheduled CEQ public
hearings on the issue. The basis of the Secretary's decision was a
Department Solicitor's opinion (1) that he had limited discretion
under Reclamation law on the question of long-term contract renewal
and (2) that the contract renewals did not constitute a major
Federal action requiring compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
CEQ issued its opinion that renewal of Friant Unit water contracts
constituted a major Federal action subject to the NEPA process.
The opinion was rendered in late June, following public hearings in
Washington, D.C. and California. Although not binding, CEQ's
opinion is normally given great deference since they are the
dispute resolution agency on NEPA compliance issues. Therefore,
Interior is reassessing its position that Friant Unit contract
renewals are not subject to NEPA in light of the CEQ recommenda-
tions.
Legal Issues:
NRDC filed a lawsuit in December 1988, to prevent renewal of the
Friant Unit contracts on grounds of failure to comply with NEPA and
the Endangered Species Act.
While the Court did not grant NRDC's request for a preliminary
injunction, the Bureau of Reclamation was required to include a
clause in the Orange Cove and future Friant Unit contracts stating
that the contracts are subject to the final order in NRDC V.
Houston. Thus the Court did not limit its options until it rules
on the case next year, while allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to
renew Friant Unit contracts.
CEQ agrees that the Secretary of the Interior has limited
discretion on the issue of whether to offer long-term renewal
contracts. However, CEQ and EPA disagree with Interior on the
applicability of NEPA. Both believe the Secretary has sufficient
discretion regarding other terms of the contracts to constitute a
-2-
major Federal action subject to NEPA. In addition, prior to
renewal of the Orange Cove contract for a 40-year period, the
Secretary had indicated that he believed a 10-year contract would
meet the requirement for offering a long-term renewal contract.
Budget Issues:
Costs over and above the preparation of an EIS, estimated at $2-5
million, are speculative. However, the central issue is the "price
of water", not the Federal treasury. If the price was set at
market price then many of the environmental issues would be
resolved or greatly mitigated, including impacts of implementing
EIS alternatives due to (1) increased in-stream flows for fish and
wildlife and recreation or fish bypass facilities, (2) measures to
improve water quality in San Francisco Bay and Sacramento and San
Joaquin Deltas, or (3) measures associated with alleviating
irrigation drainage problems.
The budgetary impact of increasing water charges beyond the
increases already put in motion are negligible. This is because
the number of contracts and amounts in any given year are
relatively small. Wholesale, across-the-board increases are beyond
the Secretary's administrative discretion.
-3-
Washington Post 9-19-89
water
A Second Chance on Water
O
NE OF the first decisions former Rep.
This is complicated by the fact that most of the
Manuel Lujan made as secretary of the interi-
subsidized federal water goes to agriculture, where
or had to do with western water, and he made
part of it is wasted on giant farms in production of
it wrong. Brushing aside an objection by Environ-
surplus crops that, once grown, the government
mental Protection Agency administrator William
ends up subsidizing again. There are fiscal and equity
Reilly, Mr. Lujan renewed an important long-term
as well as environmental issues at stake in these
contract to deliver water to California irrigators
renewals.
without conducting a formal study of the environ-
The National Environmental Policy Act requires
mental impact that Mr. Reilly said was required by
environmental impact studies before the government
law. Now, however, the issue is reappearing. Mr.
undertakes any major federal action significantly
Reilly has new allies within a better-organized ad-
affecting the environment. Environmental groups
ministration, and the administration's intentions may
and Mr. Reilly asked for such a study here. Reagan
be put to a better test.
holdovers in the Interior Department advised Mr.
Water is perhaps the most precious resource in
Lujan that, because of another law, he had no choice
the arid West. A major function of the federal
but to renew the contracts and no such study was
government has been to capture and deliver it at cut
required. Mr. Reilly appealed to the Council of
rates as a spur to western development. Nowhere
Environmental Quality, the White House agency that
has the government done more of this than in
is supposed to referee such issues, but before it
diverting water from the San Francisco area and
could rule in his favor, as it did in July, Mr. Lujan
north to the deserts of central and Southern Califor-
ordered the first contract signed. Now, however,
nia. In the state's great central valley these diver-
four more contracts are up for renewal, President
sions have produced an agricultural miracle, but at
Bush's own appointees are in place at CEQ and the
enormous environmental cost in such areas as the
natural resources division of the Justice Department,
San Francisco delta, the vast, boggy plant and animal
and the administration has a chance to redeem itself.
breeding ground where many of the northern rivers
The choice is between obeying the basic law and
converge.
not doing so, and between 40 more years of wasting
The federal water contracts typically run 40
a valuable resource and the start of sensible conser-
years, and the first of them in the central valley are
vation. No one wants to cut the farmers off entirely,
now expiring. The policy question is whether to
nor will that happen. But for the administration of a
renew them without substantial change or amend
committed environmentalist, this one ought to be a
them to withhold more water for natural purposes.
snap.
California
F/Interia Contract
4
Washington Post 10-8-89
Water Policy-No Second Chance Required
The Sept. 19 editorial "A Second
must and will be addressed. I have
Chance on Water" fails to recognize
stated that repeatedly. We must also
the complexity of the issues surround-
recognize that we have legal and mor-
ing the renewal of long-term water-
al obligations to California water us-
delivery contracts in California.
ers, and that, in fact, the appropriate
The Post bases its judgment re-
use of water resources is fundamen-
garding future long-term water-con-
tally a state matter. The state of
tract renewals on the recommenda-
California, through its water-permit-
tion of the former chairman of the
ting process, has the final say in the
Council on Environmental Quality
beneficial uses of its water.
that I prepare an environmental im-
These are the premises upon which
pact statement before renewing the
my actions have been based and upon
Orange Cove Irrigation District con-
which I will continue to administer
tracts. There was only one other CEQ
water policy. I am reviewing the CEQ
member at the time, and she did not
recommendations on these same
sign the recommendation. Instead,
premises and will deal with future
she expressed doubts about the ap-
water-contract renewals in a way that
propriateness of the council's involve-
is consistent with both the law and
ment in what is essentially a legal
administration policy.
issue.
MANUEL LUJAN JR.
The Post also failed to mention that
Secretary of the Interior
this matter is in litigation in federal
Washington
court and that my contract renewal
contained a provision requiring that
the final decision of the courts be
implemented by the contract.
Also treated lightly and with some
disdain was the fact that my decision
was based on adherence to laws en-
acted by Congress governing water-
contract renewals. I cannot ignore the
fact that Congress made it clear some
time ago that the contracts by which
we deliver water to irrigation dis-
tricts in the Central Valley of Califor-
nia are to be renewed if the districts
so desire.
As a Cabinet member, I have to
execute policies within the boundaries
the law sets forth. In this case, re-
newal of the contract was not discre-
tionary-it was required by law.
Within that legal framework, I re-
newed the contract while at the same
time ordering that environmental
studies be conducted and that oppor-
tunities for environmental enhance-
ment be explored.
Clearly, environmental concerns
EPA in the News
B6 SUNDAY, APRIL 16, 1989
THE WASHINGTON POST
The Washington Post
Flaterior
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Calih
water
Water Boys
HE ADMINISTRATION has just failed an
than the natural one that existed before. There is
T
early environmental test involving the most
also a rising demand for water from the cities in
precious resource in the mostly arid west-
Southern California.
ern half of the country: water. Much of the water
The expiration of the contracts seemed the
in the western states is federally produced and
perfect opportunity to review these issues and
subsidized, mainly for agriculture. The federal
change the federal policies before another 40
dams. delivery systems and subsidies have been
years. A 1969 federal law requires such a review
crucial; the West could not have been developed
in the form of an environmental impact statement
without them. But the historic diversions have
before any "major" federal action-renewal of the
also taken a grievous environmental toll. No-
contracts-promising "significantly" to affect the
where have both the boon and the damage from
environment. The Reagan Interior Department
the federal intervention been more evident than
had bowed to the growers and declared that the
in California.
1969 law did not apply and the government had
Now the first federal water delivery contracts
no choice but to renew the contracts. In the Bush
in California are expiring. When these were
administration a newly energized Environmental
signed 40 years ago, relatively little thought was
Protection Agency had appealed this tortured
given to the possible adverse consequences; the
reading of the law and urged that federal policy be
goal was to develop a desert. Now circumstances
reexamined; the White House had seemed about
have changed. It is not just that environmental
to do so.
issues are in vogue; the development having
But last week Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan
occurred, its costs are increasingly in evidence.
announced instead that he was signing the first of
Important natural areas in Northern California-
the expiring contracts without a formal study of
symbolized by the spongy delta east of San
their environmental impact. The former con-
Francisco where mountain rivers converge in a
gressman tried in effect to wash the administra-
vast plant and animal breeding ground before
tion's hands of the issue, saying it was up to the
flowing to the sea-have been deprived of needed
states "to determine basic water rights.
This
fresh water for the benefit of the drier south. In
principle of state primacy is one which must be
the south, meanwhile, the recycling of the water
respected." He ordered an informal environmen-
for irrigation-partly to let huge producers grow
tal study to help the state but said he would only
crops such as cotton, which are already in surplus
intervene more directly if ordered to do so by a
and must therefore be further subsidized-has
court. In other words, if the problem is to be
served to build up deadly salts in the soil and
addressed, someone else will have to do it. This is
threatens to create an even greater wasteland
a cop-out.
A22 TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1989
The Washington Post
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
A Question For Mr. Lujan
HE FEDERAL government began supply-
and that one way to make the system fairer—re-
T
ing low-cost water to farmers in the desert
duce the subsidy, encourage conservation, save
of California's Central Valley a generation
more water for the growing cities-would be to
ago. The water made the desert bloom. but its
raise the water's price. They would also like more
subsidized diversion has created fairness questions
water reserved by fiat for natural areas and uses.
and caused serious environmental damage. Now the
Environmental groups thus see the expiration of
first of the long-term delivery contracts is up for
the first generation of federal water contracts as a
renewal, coincidentally just as the Bush administra-
crucial opportunity. As a first step they want the
tion is taking hold. Mr. Bush in the campaign said he
Interior Department to do environmental impact
would be a strong environmental president. The
statements before renewing the agreements. A 1969
water issue will be an early test of how he and
law requires such studies whenever "major" federal
Interior Secretary-designate Manuel Lujan intend
actions threaten "significantly" to affect the environ-
to strike that balance.
ment. But the Interior Department decided that such
Much of the arid West relies on government
reviews were not required, in part on grounds that a
water-supplies collected behind government dams
1956 law guaranteed the farmers renewal anyway.
and distributed through government canals. In this
The issue is going to the courts-unless the new
as in so much else, California is the leading example.
management at Interior relents and agrees to the
Most of the surface water in those parts of Califor-
reviews. It should. To do otherwise is to lock into
nia south of San Francisco is brought by the state
place for the next 40 years a policy decision already
and federal governments from the east and north.
40 years old. The state is making a decision of its
About 85 percent of this water goes to agriculture,
own on how much water, if any, to recoup for San
only 15 percent to citles and industry. Environmen-
Francisco Bay, the extensive wetlands east of it and
talists say the resouting of this water has done
other affected areas. The federal government
enormous harm, particularly (though not only) to
should do a similar reweighing of benefits and costs.
the areas from which it has been taken; that the
The traditional goal of western water policy has
farm
name of whom are using the subsidized
been development of dry and empty areas. Now
unneeded crops that must in turn
they are developed, and a different balance is
be
are wasteful and could do with less;
needed.
04-11-89 03:45PM DEPT INTERIORDC
P02/**
OF THE INTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
March
,
E
April 11, 1989
Memorandum
To:
of
Reclamation
From:
Subject:
Water Service Cove Irrigation
Commissioner, Secretary mJ Bureau
District
I have approved the proposed renewal contract, identified as Rev.
R.O. 2/2-1989, for water service to the Orange Cove Irrigation
District. However, consideration of comments received by the
Bureau of Reclamation on the contract and the contracting
process, as well as recent developments in the litigation on the
proposed Friant Unit contract renewals, has led me to direct two
changes in the agreement.
First, in accordance with the recent court order in NRDC V.
Houston, I am directing you to add the following paragraph to
Article 14:
The terms of this contract are subject to the
final order in NRDC V. Houston, No. CIV-S-88-
1658-LKK-EM (E.D. Cal.).
Second, I am directing you to add an additional new paragraph to
Article 14, which will read:
In the event that the State Water Resources
Control Board, in accordance with state and
federal law, modifies the permit granted to
the United States for appropriation of water,
the parties agree to negotiate amendments as
necessary to incorporate these modifications.
The United States and Contractor shall defend
project rights to divert and use water
delivered under this agreement before all
courts and agencies exercising jurisdiction
over said rights. Nothing herein shall permit
changes to contract water quantities, except
on an equitable sharing basis among all
contractors utilizing the water diverted under
said permit.
This new subarticle will clarify the role of the State in
originally providing water rights under permit to the United
States and will recognize the obligation of the United States and
04-11-89 03:46PM DEPT INTERIORDC
PORTA
the Contractor to amend their agreement in response to certain
modifications of that permit by the State Water Resources Control
Board. Such modifications might include those necessitated by
environmental studies performed by the State or the Bureau or
other factors identified in the State's processes for determining
beneficial uses to which water must be put. The language also
makes explicit the obligation of the United States to defend its
project water rights. While these points were implicit in the
proposed contract, the new subarticle will make them explicit.
with the noted changes, the Bureau may proceed with the contract.
04-11-89 03:47PM DEPT INTERIORDC
OF
DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR
news release
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Steve Goldstein:
Office
(202) 343-6416
For Release: April 11, 1989
Home
(202) 887-5248
FRIANT WATER CONTRACT OFFER MADE
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan today announced he is offering a
long-term, forty year renewal of a federal irrigation contract to the
Orange Cove Irrigation District in California's San Joaquin Valley as
required under a 1956 law. At the same time, Lujan stated his commitment
to the primacy of the state authority for water use decisions and directed
that an environmental assessment be made of the effects of continued water
deliveries within the Friant service area of the Central Valley Project.
"Renewal of long-term water supply contracts may pose legitimate
environmental concerns, " Lujan said. "To address these environmental
issues, I am directing the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct assessment studies to determine if any environmental effects result
from delivery of water under the renewed contract, and to explore
opportunities for environmental recovery programs in the San Joaquin River
basin. It is my intent that these studies be carried out in conjunction
with the state and other interested organizations."
Secretary Lujan pointed out that renewing the Orange Cove contract will
protect the taxpayers' interests and encourage increased water conservation
by allowing the federal government to immediately begin charging a
substantially higher price for the water delivered under the contract. He
also asserted that the contract is compatible with the proceedings of the
Council on Environmental Quality, and is consistent with the directions of
the federal court.
-DOI-
04-11-89 03:47PM DEPT INTERIORDC
P05/**
or
DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR
March
news release
PRESS STATEMENT BY THE
Steve Goldstein:
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Office (202) 343-6416
MANUEL LUJAN, JR.
Home
(202) 887-5248
I am today offering a long-term renewal of a federal irrigation contract
to the Orange Cove Irrigation District in California's San Joaquin Valley
as required under 1956 law.
My decision is guided by three basic principles:
0 The federal government has both a legal and moral obligation to
the water users of the Friant Unit. Failure to meet that
obligation would be devastating to the economy of the entire area
and would represent a severe breach of faith.
The State of California has the primary authority to
determine basic water rights and entitlements on the basis of
beneficial use, water quality, and other regional considerations.
This principle of state primacy is one which must be respected at
the federal level and is entirely consistent with this contract
renewal.
o Within the framework of these long-standing obligations, it
must be recognized that the renewal of long-term water supply
contracts pose legitimate environmental concerns, and I will,
along with the state, evaluate these issues.
To address these environmental issues, I am directing the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct assessment studies to determine if
any environmental effects result from deliveries of water under the renewed
contract and to share this research with the state and district.
Additionally, I am asking the Commissioner to explore opportunities for
environmental recovery programs in the San Joaquin River Basin. It is my
intent that these studies be carried out in conjunction with the state and
other interested organizations, and that the findings will be considered by
the state and the districts as they adopt environmentally sensitive
operating procedures and water policies.
Renewal of the Friant Unit contracts and protecting the environment are
not mutually exclusive -- provided that we establish an effective working
partnership among the federal government, the state, water users, and
concerned environmental, fish, and game interests. I am today pledging
that the Department of the Interior will do its part to forge such a
partnership.
04-11-89 03:48PM DEPT INTERIORDC
P06.
By moving forward with the renewal of this contract, I will be meeting
our obligation to the water users, and I will also be ensuring that the
taxpayers will receive a fair price for the water provided by the Central
Valley Project. Under this renewal, the beneficiaries of this water will
begin to pay at a flexible, annually adjusted rate that will allow full
recovery of all allocated capital, operations and maintenance costs, and
applicable interest. The Orange Cove rates, for example, will increase
from $3.50 to $14.84 per acre foot -- a four-fold increase.
By bringing these rates into line with actual costs, we will encourage
conservation and better management of our valuable water resources.
This proposed contract is compatible with the proceedings of the Council
on Environmental Quality, and will accommodate the federal court's decision
which allows execution of a renewed contract with a stipulation that it
remains subject to the final order in the NRDC V. Houston lawsuit.
2
56
EXPLANATORY VIEWS OF JACQUELINE E. SCHAFER
With respect to the findings:
I cannot find that the Bureau's proposal and the Secretary's
subsequent decision to renew one of the pending Friant Unit
water service contracts in the absence of preparing environmental
analysis under section 102(2)(C) is an unreasonable
interpretation of the applicability of NEPA, the agency's own
implementing procedures, Federal reclamation law, including the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Act of July 2, 1956, and
the terms and conditions governing the United States permits from
the State Water Resources Control Board. The Solicitors's
conclusion that contract renewal is a ministerial act that
retains the status quo is a fair reading of applicable law and
falls within that agency's authority.
CEQ's role under the referral process is not to interpret
all of the relevant law, but to seek resolution of significant
environmental issues when a disagreement about environmental
impacts arises between federal agencies. That is, CEQ's role is
more like that of a mediator than a judge. Although CEQ has been
accorded deference concerning interpretation of NEPA, CEQ has no
special expertise concerning federal reclamation law, state water
law, or the property status of water rights under the
57
stitution, which are also at issue legally in this matter.
men all of this law is brought to bear on the contract renewals,
CEQ is hard pressed to justify substituting its legal judgment
for that of the agency responsible for making the decision to
proceed with the contract.
The legal issue revolves around the nature and extent of the
Secretary's discretion, which is not exclusively a matter of NEPA
interpretation. The legal constraints on his ability to choose
from among meaningful alternatives for various terms and
conditions to be applied to the contract are not imposed by NEPA.
Arguments have been presented about the degree of this
discretion, and its impact on the "status quo", but Interior's
judgment in this matter is not unreasonably applied to these
contract renewals. Thus, while the referral presents CEQ with
the opportunity to offer a contrary opinion, as a matter of
policy we should exercise restraint in giving it. This is
especially true in this case, where CEQ's opinion will not, by
itself, provide the means to resolve the disagreement, which is
the purpose of the referral procedure.
With respect to the recommendations:
The documents received by CEQ in response to the referral
raise a number of issues, the importance of which can scarcely be
overstated, concerning the future use and allocation of water
58
resources in California's Central Valley, and the environmental
impacts of the possible alternatives for putting those resources
to other uses, including the opportunity to restore water
quality, fisheries, wetlands and other wildlife habitat. In
announcing his decision to offer a renewal contract to the Orange
Cove Irrigation District, Secretary Lujan pledged to evaluate
these issues, which can be expected to have a profound influence
on the nature of future Federal-State relationships concerning
water resources.
Separate and apart from the Friant Unit contract renewals,
it appears that there are other points in the course of agency
decisionmaking affecting water use that would present the
occasion to incorporate such environmental considerations, making
the performance of environmental analysis meaningful. For
example, the agency's proposal to adopt or make a change in its
rate setting policy applicable to broad classes of water
contracts provides an occasion to assess the environmental
impacts of alternative non-quantity contract terms. Had an
environmental review been performed in the recent CVP Irrigation
Water Ratesetting Policy (May 1988), for instance, a more
meaningful analysis of the potential impacts of this particular
type of contract condition might have been available than would
be likely for the Friant renewals alone.
In the future, the establishment of the Federal Government's
59
policy in response to the results of the (California) State Water
Resources Control Board's investigation of Sacramento Delta/San
Francisco Bay water quality provides another occasion to evaluate
environmental impacts and avoidance or mitigation measures that
could be developed in concert with the State, which has the
primary authority to determine basic water rights and
entitlements. Recommendations for conservation measures (e.g.,
metering) and demand management (e.g., pricing) policies would
have more utility in this context than in that for contract
renewals, where Federal agency discretion is far more highly
constrained.
In the case of the Orange Cove contract renewal, for
instance, it appears that all water delivered is used in
accordance with state of the art water irrigation conservation
technology, making the imposition of further terms and conditions
with respect to such conservation practices unlikely to effect
significant environmental changes. In fact, Friant Unit
irrigation contractors appear to have practiced unusually
effective water conservation through their "conjunctive use" of
groundwater withdrawal and recharge. On the other hand, this
may not be the case of "municipal and industrial" contractors
which distribute water for domestic consumption without analogous
incentives to conserve it.
Should California, as a result of the State Board's review,
60
propose significant changes in its policies to appropriate water,
there will be other opportunities to bring about changes in water
use than through these particular contract renewals. For
example, in the future, water marketing could play a significant
role in directing water to preferred uses. Other ways may prove
to be possible that are not yet recognized as being available,
but which could arise as a result of a cooperative Federal and
State effort as pledged by the Secretary, consistent with
protecting the valid property rights of water users.
Conclusion:
My own views on the matter before the Council are
sufficiently different that those set forth in the above-stated
Findings and Recommendations that I have determined not to sign
that document and, instead, to give this explanation.
Acquelive schefer 6/29/89
Jacqueline E. Schafer,
Member
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
State of California
Attorney General
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
3580 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. ROOM 800
LOS ANGELES 90010
(213) 736-2304
February 21, 1989
The Honorable Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Secretary of the Interior
United States Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Secretary Lujan:
I understand that you are today considering whether to postpone
the renewal of water service contracts involving the Friant Unit
of the Central Valley Project in California. A postponement
would allow additional review of the Interior Solicitor's opinion
that such renewals are exempt from the National Environmental
Policy Act's (NEPA) environmental reporting requirements as well
as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) contrary
conclusion. As California's Attorney General, I urge you to take
whatever time is required to reconsider the Department's prior
decision review. to renew such contracts without proper environmental
Consistent with my independent role as California's chief law
officer, I have reviewed the Solicitor's opinion and other
pertinent authorities carefully. I have concluded that the EPA
is correct that environmental reporting pursuant to NEPA is
mandatory prior to renewal of these contracts for another forty
year term. I have therefore filed an amiçus curiae brief
supporting those parties seeking a court order requiring
compliance with NEPA prior to renewal of these contracts. (See
Natural Resources Defense Council et al V. Houston et al, E.D.
California No. CIVS-88-1658-LKK-EM)
This brief, filed January 24, 1989, concludes that such renewals
do not merely perpetuate the status quo but instead involve a
major discretionary commitment of resources subject to NEPA. In
deciding under what conditions the United States will agree to
commit for decades millions of acre feet of water, you have
considerable discretion to mitigate or avoid future harm to the
environment in California. Moreover, requiring proper
environmental review need not prevent interim water supplies nor
compel any ultimate conclusion as to the appropriate conditions
for renewal. Therefore, compliance with NEPA should not
prejudice the underlying interests of any of the affected
parties. Consistent with the purpose of the law, it should only
matter. enable you to make a more informed decision on this important
2
P.
80:20 68/51/80
FROM FROM AG SAC
I am confident that further review will persuade you and others
in the new administration that the EPA's position is not only
legally correct, but that it is also sound public policy. Your
careful reconsideration of the Department's past position could
resolve this matter without further litigation and without
prejudice to any affected interest. For these reasons, I support
postponement of the renewals to allow additional time for you to
review this issue personally.
Very truly yours,
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
Attorney General
JKV:CE/vv
E 'd
80:20 68/51/80
FROM FROM AG SAC
Mar. 14 '89 16:53
0000 NRDC-SF
TEL 415-495-5996
P. 2/ 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PAUL R. BONDERSON BUILDING
901 P STREET
P.O. BOX 100
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95801
(916) 445-3993
DEC 13 1008
In Reply Refer
to:GEJ:A23
Mr. John T. Murphy, Governor
Region IV
California Trout, Incorporated
P. O. Box 883
Modesto, CA 95353
Dear Mr. Murphy:
FRIANT WATER CONTRACTS
Thank you for your November 8, 1988 letter urging the State Board
to take a position regarding environmental review of the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation's renewal of long-term contracts for the
Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. The environmental
review process provides decision-makers and the public with an
enlightened review of the effects of proposed actions. However,
the applicability of the federal NEPA process to the Bureau's
proposed action is a federal matter that I urge you to continue
to discuss with them.
The State Board will be reviewing certain aspects of the Friant
project water rights in the near future. The obligation of the
Friant water right permits to assist in maintaining water quality
standards in the Bay/Delta Estuary is an issue that will be
explored by the State Board in Phase III of its Bay/Delta
hearing. The Board may modify these permits to reflect this
obligation. While this may not produce the additional flows
below Friant Dam that you are seeking, it will evaluate the
responsibility of the Friant System to provide flows either
directly or indirectly to the Bay/Delta Estuary.
Sincerely,
W. W. Llon Don Maughan
Chairman
9-12
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
February 24, 1989
Board of Directors (Legal and Claims Committee--Information)
General Counsel
Subject:
Analysis of the Opinion of the Department of the Interior's
Solicitor regarding Renewal of the Friant Unit Contracts
Summary
In an opinion dated November 10, 1988, the Solicitor
of the Department of the Interior (Solicitor) addressed the
question of whether or not the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau)
was required to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) concerning renewals of water
service contracts for districts within the Friant Unit of the
Central Valley Project (project). The Solicitor concluded
that the Bureau is not required to prepare an EIS or EA
because such renewals are nondiscretionary actions and do
nothing more than retain the status quo. It was his opinion
that even assuming that NEPA is applicable to the renewals,
they would be subject to a categorical exclusion from
preparation of such environmental review documents.
Therefore, he concluded, the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) has no discretion but to renew the contracts, if
requested, for the same quantity of water, and NEPA does not
apply to the renewals.
A member of the Legal and Claims Committee requested
that the Legal Department analyze the Solicitor's opinion and
conclusion.
The Legal Department has concluded that as to
contracts entered into prior to the 1956 amendment to the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (1956 Act), the Secretary
clearly has discretion at least regarding the quantity of
water to be delivered pursuant to any renewals and possibly
even as to whether the contracts will be renewed at all. As
to contracts entered into after the passage of the 1956 Act,
Board of Directors
-2-
February 24, 1989
the answer is less clear. The Bureau is required to renew the
contracts, if requested, but it appears that the Bureau has
discretion to modify the quantity of water delivered upon
renewal. Of course, the equitable interests of both pre- and
post-1956 contractors are substantial and could affect their
renewal rights. Nevertheless, since it appears the Secretary
has some discretion as to the terms upon renewal of all of
these contracts, the Bureau must comply with NEPA. Further,
the Solicitor's conclusion that NEPA is inapplicable because
the renewals will merely continue the status quo appears to be
incorrect. Finally, assuming that NEPA applies, these
contract renewals most likely would qualify as exceptions to
the categorical exclusion cited by the Solicitor, thereby
requiring preparation of an EA. In short, contrary to the
opinion of the Solicitor, NEPA applies to these contract
renewals.
Note should be taken that our analysis is confined to
review of the Solicitor's opinion and that it does not address
other issues affecting existing contractors' renewal rights.
Recommendation
For information only.
Detailed Report
There are three major issues examined in the
Solicitor's opinion. This report will summarize each of the
Solicitor's arguments followed by the Legal Department's
response.
1. Does the Secretary have any discretion but to
renew the contracts for the same quantity of water as
previously?
A. Solicitor's Opinion:
Sixteen utility-type contracts were entered into
prior to the 1956 Act while seven contracts were entered into
after passage of that act. The 1956 Act requires all
utility-type contracts executed after its passage to include a
renewal provision, if requested, and provide during the term
of the contract or any renewal that the contracting party has
a first right to a stated share or quantity of the project's
available water supply. Congress also authorized the
Secretary to negotiate amendments to pre-1956 contracts to
conform with the provisions of the 1956 Act.
Board of Directors
-3-
February 24, 1989
Therefore, since there is no indication that Congress
intended to treat pre- and post-1956 contracts differently,
the Secretary has no discretion but to renew both pre- and
post-1956 Act contracts for the quantities of water set out in
the original contracts. Thus, the 1956 Act itself precludes
the application of NEPA.
B. Response:
The 1956 Act required that all contracts executed
after its passage include a provision for renewal of the
contract, if requested, under stated terms and conditions
mutually agreeable to the parties and that the contractors
would have a first right, to which the right of holders of
other types of irrigation contracts would be subordinate, to a
stated share or quantity of the project's available water
supply. However, the basis, limit and measure of the
contractors' rights to the use of project water is beneficial
use. The 1956 Act merely authorized the Secretary to
negotiate amendments to pre-1956 Act contracts to conform with
the 1956 Act provisions.
According to the Solicitor's opinion, some
pre-1956 Act contracts have been amended and some have not.
However, even as to the pre-1956 contracts which have been
amended, the amendments do not, in fact, conform to the
provisions of the 1956 Act. The amendments contain no
mandatory renewal provision nor do they contain a provision
for a first right, to which irrigators receiving water under
other contracts would be subordinate, to a stated share of the
project's available supply. Therefore, as to these contracts,
the Secretary was authorized to amend to conform to the
1956 Act but. apparently, chose not to do SO. Thus, as to
contracts executed prior to 1956, the Secretary clearly has
discretion to change the quantity of water delivered to the
contractors and possibly can even refuse to renew the
contracts altogether. Of course, these contractors' equitable
interests in renewal and in the amount of water delivered are
substantial and could be weighed in any decision affecting
renewal.
As to contracts executed after passage of the
1956 Act, the Secretary clearly must renew the contract, if
requested. However, it appears that the Secretary has
discretion to change the amount of water delivered to any
contractor since any renewal is to be on terms and conditions
mutually agreeable to the parties and is limited by beneficial
Board of Directors
-4-
February 24, 1989
use of the water. Further, the contractors' first right to a
share of the available supply is applicable only against other
irrigators and not as to other beneficial uses.
Therefore, since contracts executed both before and
after 1956 allow for the exercise of some discretion on the
part of the Secretary to change the amount of water delivered
in any renewals as well as discretion to change other terms
and conditions of the contracts, it is our opinion that NEPA
applies to such renewals.
2. Does NEPA apply to ongoing projects which do not
change the status quo?
A. Solicitor's Opinion:
Since the Secretary has no discretion but to renew
the contracts and for the same quantity as previously under
contract, the federal action (i.e., the contract renewals)
will not change the status quo. Therefore, the renewals are
not subject to NEPA because they are not major federal actions
with significant effects on the human environment.
B. Response:
NEPA requires that environmental issues be considered
at every important stage in the decision-making process
concerning a particular action. The Friant Unit contract
renewals propose to carry out an irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of a public resource for a term of
40 years. As discussed above, the Bureau possesses legal
authority to modify the terms of any renewals. The Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, has
ruled in a similar case involving federal relicensing of
hydroelectric projects that such major relicensing decisions
are not merely a continuation of the status quo and,
therefore, should be accompanied by the preparation of an
EIS. The court stated that simply because the resource has
been committed in the past does not make relicensing a phase
in a continuous activity. Rather, relicensing involves a new
commitment of the resource. Therefore, similarly, major
recontracting decisions, such as renewals of the Friant Unit
contracts, require compliance with NEPA.
3. Assuming that the renewals are subject to NEPA,
is there a categorical exclusion which is applicable?
Board of Directors
-5-
February 24, 1989
A. Solicitor's Opinion:
A "categorical exclusion" relieves federal agencies
from preparing an EIS for relatively routine activities which
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment. Contract renewals which implement
administrative or financial changes only are categorically
excluded from EIS requirements. This categorical exclusion
alters the general rule that an EIS should be done for
contract amendments which have not already undergone NEPA
review. Therefore, even if NEPA was applicable to the
renewals, they would be subject to the above categorical
exclusion since the only anticipated change in the renewed
contracts will be a minor rate increase.
B. Response:
The Bureau's NEPA Handbook, which contains
regulations adopted by the Department of the Interior, states
that the categorical exclusion cited by the Solicitor is not
applicable and an EA or an E1S must be prepared when it
appears that a particular activity may have any of the
following effects: actions which may adversely affect
recreation, wetlands or ecologically significant areas; have
highly controversial environmental effects; establish a
precedent for future action; or affect a species listed or
proposed to be listed as an endangered or threatened species.
Since the proposed renewal of the Friant contracts may involve
each of the above consequences, it appears that the
categorical exclusion cited by the Solicitor is not applicable
to this case.
Fred Vendig
PPC: jh
LDBOARD2-567
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
06a. Letter
From John A. Moore to A. Alan Hill
2/2/89
Re: Central Valley Water Projects (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
Bygf
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
UNITED
STATES.
RECEIVE
AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEB 03 1980
PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
CEQ
FEB . 2 1989
THE ADMINISTRATOR D6-see
The Honorable A. Alan Hill
Chairman
Council on Environmental Quality
me
722 Jackson Place
Washington, D.C. 20006
H
Dear Chairman Hill:
I am writing you pursuant to the responsibilities of the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EFA) under Section
309 (b) of the Clean Air Act. Section 309(h) requires that the
Administrator refer to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) any
matter pertaining to his duties and responsibilities that he determines
to be "unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health, welfare or
environmental quality " CEQ's regulations recognize EPA's distinct
referral authority under section 309 (40 CFR 1504.1(b)).
I am referring the proposal by the Department of Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation (BuRec) to renew long-term water contracts for the Orange
Cove and other Friant Unit irrigation districts of the Central Valley
Project (CVP). BuRec proposes to renew these 40-year contracts without
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The renewed
contracts would commit to existing uses 1.5 million acre-feet of CVP
water for. the next 40 years, without benefit of the public review that
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was intended to provide.
EPA believes that renewal of these contracts constitutes a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and,
accordingly, that BuRec's action falls under section 102(2) (C) of NEPA.
Without benefit of an EIS, I cannot make a conclusive detenmination
that this action by BuRec would in fact prove "unsatisfactory" from the
standpoint of public health, welfare or environmental quality. I
believe, however, that unsatisfactory environmental results may well
occur if this long-term commitment of water is made, and that assessment
of environmental effects and the implementation of measures to avoid or
mitigate those effects is required both by NEPA and sound public policy.
EPA believes that the failure to prepare an EIS removes from EFA's -- and
the public's -- review the environmental issues inherent in committing
1.5 million acre-feet of CVP water for 40 years. Accordingly, I have
determined that making irretrievable long-term commitments of water use
without benefit of an EIS violates the purposes and intent of NFTA.
Further, in the absence of environmental analysis that would indicate
otherwise, I believe that renewal of these contracts is unsatisfactory
from the standpoint of environmental quality in the San Joaquin
River/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta/San Francisco Bay area.
In preparing an EIS, I believe that BuRec must consider the effects
of continuing to divert this water from other beneficial uses, such as
instream flow through the San Joaquin River, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
and San Francisco Bay. BuRec's proposed contracts will commit water for
consumptive use that could help restore the salmon runs and wetlands of
the San Joaquin River area and help improve water quality. The State of
California's concern for Delta/San Francisco Bay water quality has
resulted in a study by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to
determine, by 1990, the appropriate flows through the Delta and Bay to
improve water quality and protect beneficial uses. EPA is concerned that
any long-term contracts could preempt water that SWRCB may determine
necessary to achieve water quality standards. Because of the interest of
EPA and the State of California in protecting all beneficial uses, and
the status of San Francisco Bay as a National Estuary, proceeding without
benefit of an EIS leaves important environmental issues unanswered.
The enclosures to this letter include a copy of my letter to the
Secretary of Interior informing him of my referral of this matter
(Enclosure 1), and a discussion of the issues that the Council's
regulations require at 40 CFR 1504.3(c) (2) (Enclosure 2). My letter to
the Secretary requests that he take no action that will lead to entering
into CVP long-term contract renewals until the Council acts upon this
referral.
Finally, I would point out that, in the absence of an EIS filing to
trigger the 25-day time clock for referral (described in 40 CFR
1504.3(b)), and in the absence of any time constraints in the language of
section 309(b) of the Clean Air Act, the appropriate time to refer this
action is now, prior to the signing of any long-term contract renewals
for the Friant Unit. I urge-you to accept this referral SO that we may
expeditiously resolve these issues within the Executive Branch.
If we can provide any additional information, please call me,
Richard E. Sanderson (Director of Federal Activities, 382-5053), or
Daniel W. McGovern, Region 9 Regional Administrator.
Sincerely,
John James A. Moore
Acting Administrator
Enclosures
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
06b. Statement
Predecision Referral Statement Supporting U.S. EPA's
n.d.
P/5
Referral to the Council on Environmental Quality of the U.S.
Department of Interior's Proposed Renewal of Water
Contracts for the Friant Unit of the Central Valley Project (3
pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By sp
(NLGB) on 5/12/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIAJ
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
PREDUCISION REFERRAL STATEMENT (40 CFR 1504.3(c) (2))
SUPPORTING THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
REFERRAL TO THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S PROPOSED RENEWAL OF
WATER CONTRACTS FOR THE FRIANT UNIT OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJDCT
(i) Identification of Material Facts in Controversy
and Agreed-upon Facts
Material Facts in Controversy
The Department of Interior asserts that an EIS is not required for these
contract renewals. Whatever legal constraints may apply to the renewal
of the Orange Cove and other Friant Unit irrigation district contracts,
EPA believes that an EIS is necessary under section 102(2) (C) of NEPA to
evaluate the effects of various terms and conditions that could accompany
contract renewals, including what effects conservation measures or demand
management (e.g., pricing) could have on actual usage of the contract
amounts. Further, the EIS should consider not only the effects of
contract renewals on actual water usage, but Interior's separate
proposed commitment of long-term contracts for 1.5 million acre feet of
"new water." EPA recommends that a programmatic EIS would be the
appropriate vehicle for considering the cumulative impacts of all
related CVP contract decisions, as well as the larger question of overall
CVP water allocation among várious beneficial uses.
EPA believes that, without environmental assessment and appropriate
avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects, significant adverse impacts
to water quality may result from the long-term renewal of these
contracts.
Agreed-upon Facts
TO our knowledge, there are no agreed-upon facts bearing on the
resolution of the issue of NEPA compliance or adverse water quality
impacts.
(ii) Identification of any Existing Environmental Requirements
or Policies that would be Violated by the Matter
ETA believes that the NEPA and the Council's implementing regulations (40
CFR 1500-1508) would be violated by the long-term renewal of the Orange
Cove and Friant Unit irrigation district contracts without preparation of
an EIS.
EPA also believes that these actions may lead to exceedances of water
quality standard established in accordance with section 303 of the Clean
Water Act. Such a result would be contrary to the goals and objectives
of that Act.
(iii) Presentation of Reasons why the Referring Agency believes
the Matter is Environmentally Unsatisfactory
EPA believes that long-term renewal of Orange Cove and other Friant Unit
irrigation district contracts without an EIS strikes at the purpose and
utility of NEPA as a sound environmental assessment and management tool
for Federal decision making. EPA also finds that BuRec's action is
unsatisfactory because it fails to consider water quality impacts of
long-term renewal without measures to adjust terms and conditions to
control water quantity and quality to maintain and restore in-stream
beneficial uses. The current plans for entering into these long-term
renewals also fails to consider the results of the California SWRCB
project investigating Delta/San Francisco Bay water quality.
(iv) Finding that the Issue Raised is of National Importance
because of the Threat to National Environmental Resources
or Policies or for some other Reason
EPA believes that BuRec's failure to prepare an EIS on irretrievable
commitments of significant amounts of water, without consideration of the
environmental impacts or measures to avoid or mitigate such impacts, sets
an undesirable precedent for future BuRec water allocation and
management issues, both for the CVP and Nation-wide.
(v)
Review the Steps taken by the Referring Agency in Bringing
its Concerns to the Attention of the Lead Agency at the
Earliest Possible Time
EPA Region 9 has reiterated EPA's substantive and procedural concerns to
BuRec in letters dated October 19, 1988, and January 3, 198° (both
enclosed). In response to EPA's questions regarding NEPA applicability,
the Department of the Interior has forwarded their Solicitor's opinion
asserting that an EIS is not required for Interior's planned renewal of
these contracts. In addition, EFA Region 9 Regional Administrator Daniel
W. McGovern met with Interior officials on February 1, 1989.
(vi) Recommendations of the Referring Agency as to what Action(s)
is Necessary to Remedy the Situation
EFA recommends development of a programmatic EIS addressing the
programmatic goals and cumulative impacts of alternative beneficial uses
of CVP waters. At minimum, we recommend that an EIS be developed to
describe the Friant Unit contract renewals. EPA recommends that Interior
consider a short-term extension of the existing contracts, or interim
contracts of perhaps two years, while these matters are under
consideration and/or an EIS is being prepared. We believe that interim
contracts would prevent an interruption of current water use without
compromising national environmental policy. We suggest that the same
approach would be applicable to other CVP contract negotiations upcoming
before an EIS is prepared, and prior to findings or decisions of the
SWRCB.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
07. Memo
From Robert Grady to John Sununu
10/10/89
P/S
Re: Basel Convention (3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By
If
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
SEATE HOMELY STENUTIVE UNITED OFFICE THE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
OCTOBER 10, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GOVERNOR SUNUNU/
DIRECTOR DARMAN
FROM:
ROBERT E. GRADY
of
SUBJECT:
Basel Convention
With strong support from EPA, the State Department is
requesting approval to sign the Basel Convention, which sets
guidelines and restrictions concerning the export of hazardous
and municipal wastes. The Convention is open for signature
until March 22, 1990, but State and EPA agree that since the
British have signed, the U.S. must sign now to show its
leadership and avoid political and diplomatic embarassment.
Moreover, the Convention is likely to take effect sometime next
Spring when it is anticipated that 60 countries will have signed
it.
There are three issues which are raised by the substance of
the Convention language.
1.
Definition of "Environmnetally Sound"
The Convention, among other things, bans the export of
hazardous wastes unless an agreement is signed with the
receiving nation providing for the disposal of wastes in an
"environmentally sound" manner. However, the term
"environmentally sound" is not defined and would be left to
subsequent negotiation. The definition of this term is
critical. If, for example, environmentally sound disposal is
defined as in accordance with hazardous waste laws governing the
exporting country, the effect would be to require
extraterritorial application of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) in recipient countries. On the other hand,
should the U.S. argue for less stringent disposal practices in
other countries, it would be subject to criticism for trying to
create waste disposal havens. EPA made just this case last year
in arguing strongly against the export of a pesticide (EDB) that
had been banned in the U.S. but is still used actively by many
other countries.
The State Department and EPA believe that the only sure way
to ensure that the ultimate definition is appropriate from the
U.S. perspective is to become a signatory participant. This
line of argument nevertheless suggests that we would want to
know what we would be willing to accept as "environmentally
sound" before we sign.
2.
What Constitutes "Hazardous"?
The list of wastes defined as hazardous by, and therefore
subject to the convention includes wastes not listed as
hazardous by the U.S. under current law. Among these are
household wastes and large volume wastes such as mining wastes
and fly ash. The inevitable response from the environmental
community will be to seek to amend our domestic laws and
regulations to comport with the convention (i.e., to declare
these wastes to be hazardous and subject those industries to
RCRA and the attendant enormous increases in the cost of
disposal). RCRA, EPA's basic authorizing legislation governing
the disposal of these wastes, is up for reauthorization next
year and already there is likely to be significant disagreement
on the Hill and within the Administration on how to proceed.
3.
Implementing Legislation
EPA has recently proposed that the Administration submit
legislation that would go well beyond that needed to implement
the Convention. It proposes to mandate a unilateral U.S. ban on
all exports of hazardous wastes except to be recycled or in the
event of an existing bilateral agreement. The U.S. currently
has only one such agreement with Canada.
EPA is proposing this concept as a U.S. "leadership"
initiative, and as a less onerous alternative to legislation
currently under consideration by Congress. Nevertheless, the
legislation would eliminate yet another of the few disposal
options left to this country. We have already virtually
eliminated incineration on land and at sea and the siting of new
hazardous wastes facilitates has become virtually impossible due
to citizen resistance.
Options
In light of these concerns, four possible options for
further action on the Basel Convention should be considered:
1. Sign the Convention now and await subsequent receipt of
EPA's implementing legislation.
2. Refrain from signing the Convention until the EPA
submits legislation to implement the Convention and
such legislation is cleared. EPA would receive
guidance to restrict the legislation in such a way as
to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
Convention.
3. Do not sign the Convention; pursue U.S. legislation
consistent with DPC-approved policy guidance from
March.
-2-
4. Refer the issue of signing the Basel Convention and the
development of implementing legislation to the Domestic
Policy Council for Cabinet-level consideration and
possible consideration by the President.
I recommend Option 2 or Option 4.
Decision
/
/
Option 1.
/
/
Option 2.
/
/
Option 3.
/
/
Option 4.
Attachment
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
08. Memo
From Frederick M. Bernthal to The Secretary
9/13/89
Re: Circular 175: Request for Authority to Sign A Global
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes (13 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Open on Expiration of PRA
Subseries:
Issues Files
(Document Follows)
WHORM Cat.:
By pp (NLGB) on 5/12/05
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U:S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would-disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]-
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
09/13/89 14:08
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
02
UNCLASSIFIED
TO:
The Secretary
FROM:
OES - Frederick M. Bernthal
SUBJECT:
Circular 175: Request For Authority To Sign
A Global Convention On The Control Of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
And Other Wastes
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Whether to authorize and issue a full power (Tab 1) for
signature by the United States of the Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal (Tab 2), which opened for signature on March 22,
1989.
BACKGROUND
The U.S. has strongly supported efforts to establish an
international regulatory regime for transboundary movements of
hazardous wastes. In January 1988, authority was granted to
participate in UNEP-sponsored negotiations of a global
convention on this subject. In addition, the U.S. has actively
participated in the negotiation of an OECD agreement on
hazardous wastes movements.
The United States was one of the first countries to
implement controls on hazardous waste exports and since 1986
has required notice to and the consent of receiving countries
before exports proceed pursuant to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). The final text of the Basel
Convention incorporates notice and consent requirements as
fundamental elements of its regulatory regime.
In addition, the Convention recognizes that transboundary
movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes can pose
significant threats to health and the environment if receiving
countries do not possess the capacity to manage or dispose of
the wastes in an environmentally sound manner. Parties must
UNCLASSIFIED
09/13/89 14:08
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
03
- 2 -
thus require that hazardous and other wastes that are to be
exported are managed in an environmentally sound manner in the
state of import. The Convention also prohibits exports,
despite an importing party's consent, if there is reason to
believe environmentally sound management will not occur. The
agreement bans exports to non-parties unless there is an
agreement providing for the environmentally sound management of
hazardous and other wastes.
President Bush announced in March of this year that the
United States would take similar measures to control wastes
defined as hazardous under U.S. law and would seek the
necessary authority to ban exports of such wastes except where
the U.S. has an agreement with the receiving country providing
for the environmentally sound and safe handling of the wastes.
The U.S. currently has bilateral hazardous waste export
agreements with Canada and with Mexico, countries which receive
the bulk of U.S. hazardous wastes exports.
Thirty-four countries, including Mexico and Canada, and
the Commission of the European Communities signed the
Convention in Basel. (The United Kingdom, the FRG and Japan
have indicated informally that they will sign in the near
future.) We needed additional time to consider the final
text. This review has now been completed and the two agencies
principally involved, the Department and the Environmental
Protection Agency, conclude that it would be in the best
interest of the United States to sign the Convention, with a
view to submitting it to the Senate for advice and consent to
ratification.
The Basel Convention could serve as an international
agreement for purposes of the President's decision with respect
to Basel Convention parties, although additional legislative
authority would be necessary to implement obligations which go
beyond the President's announced policy such as controls over
wastes not currently defined as hazardous under U.S. law. In
the alternative, the U.S. could sign and ratify the Convention
and ban exports absent a separate bilateral or regional
agreement with the receiving country or countries. The latter
option is preferable since direct negotiations with a receiving
country and information obtained through that process regarding
its disposal capabilities is a more effective and efficient
means of controlling hazardous waste exports and providing for
their environmentally sound disposal.
Implementation of the President's policy through either
option would require additional legislative authority, in
particular, in order to implement the Convention's controls on
09/13/89 14:09
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
04
- 3 -
exports of household wastes, residues arising from their
incinceration and other wastes not currently defined as
hazardous under U.S. law (e.g. oil and gas wastes), the ban on
imports from non-parties and direct state obligations in cases
of illegal shipments. Both EPA and OES believe that the
additional legislation required to implement the Convention
would strengthen U.S. hazardous waste export policy.
I. Principal Features of the Convention
The Convention includes as key elements:
-- application of controls to wastes not currently defined
as hazardous under U.S. law, including household wastes,
residues arising from their incineration and infectious wastes
(Annexes I-III);
-- a prohibition on waste exports to parties unless the
wastes are destined for recycling or recovery industries or the
state of export does not have the capacity, facilities or
disposal sites to dispose of the wastes in an environmentally
sound and efficient manner (Article 4(9));
-- a requirement of notice to and the written consent of
importing parties (Article 6);
-- a requirement of notice to transit states and the
written consent of transit parties prior to export, unless
transit parties agree to a tacit consent procedure (Article
6(4));
-- uniform information requirements for notification of
proposed exports (Article 6(1), Annex VA);
-- a prohibition on exports to and imports from
non-parties unless there is an agreement providing for
environmentally sound management of wastes (Article 4(5),
Article 11);
-- an obligation to prohibit the export or import of
wastes if there is reason to believe that they will not be
managed in an environmentally sound manner in the importing
country (Article 4(2)(e) and (2)(g));
-- an obligation to require that wastes to be exported are
managed in an environmentally sound manner in the importing
state (Article 4(8));
09/13/89 14:10
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
A
05
- 4 -
-- a prohibition on exports of hazardous wastes and other
wastes to Antarctica (Article 4(6));
-- an obligation upon the party of export to assume
responsiblity for disposal of wastes illegally shipped if the
exporter has committed the illegality and is unable to assume
responsiblity for the wastes (Article 9(2));
-- a similar obligation upon the party of import where the
illegality was committed by the importer or disposer (Article
9(3).
-- uniform procedures for identifying wastes and tracking
their tranboundary movement by use of a "movement" document
(Annexes V, Article 4(7)(c)).
II. Issues Relating To U.S. Implementation Of The Convention
The current export provisions in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act ("RCRA") require notice to and the consent of
receiving countries for hazardous wastes. In addition, RCRA
acknowledges that the U.S. may enter into an international
agreement with the receiving country "establishing notice,
export, and enforcement procedures for the transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes". 42
U.S.C. 56938 (a) (2) and (f). A significant part of the Basel
Convention with respect to wastes defined as hazardous under
U.S. law may be implemented by regulation pursuant to this
provision, which precludes exports which do not conform with
the terms of a U.S. agreement with the receiving country.
RCRA does not provide the necessary authority to implement
the President's decision to ban exports absent an international
agreement. Under RCRA, if the U.S. does not have an agreement
with the receiving country, the export can proceed with the
consent of that country. Moreover, additional statutory
authority would be necessary to implement the Convention's ban
on imports from non-parties absent an agreement providing for
environmentally sound management and to extend export controls
to wastes not currently defined as hazardous under U.S. law.
A. Convention's Standard For
Subsequent and Prior Agreements
Article 11 sets forth the standard for subsequent and
prior agreements entered into by parties and is of particular
importance in light of potential U.S. implementation through
separate bilateral or regional agreements. Article 11 (1)
permits Parties to enter into subsequent agreements with both
parties and non-parties provided that the effect of the control
09/13/89 14:10
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
06
- 5 -
regime provided by the agreement is as environmentally sound,
taking into account the particular circumstances of developing
countries. Article 11 (1) does not require that particular
provisions of the Convention be incorporated into the
subsequent agreement and recognizes that equally
environmentally sound management of wastes may be achieved by
different means, depending upon the circumstances of the
importing country. OES and EPA have concluded that the
standard set forth in Article 11 (1) provides sufficient
flexibility for the U.S. in negotiating subsequent hazardous
waste agreements.
Article 11 (2) allows an agreement concluded prior to the
Convention's entry into force to operate as the exclusive
regulatory regime for transboundary movements which take place
pursuant to such an agreement, provided that it is compatible
with environmentally sound management of wastes subject to the
Convention. For wastes which do not proceed pursuant to such
an agreement, the controls of the Convention operate. While
the U.S. Canadian and Mexican bilateral agreements are
compatible with environmentally sound management, those
agreements do not regulate certain wastes controlled by the
Convention, notably infectious wastes, household wastes or
residues arising from their incineration. Under Article 11 (2),
the Convention's regulatory regime would apply to these
wastes. If the U.S. were to ban waste exports absent a
bilateral agreement, the ban would apply to these additional
wastes unless the U.S. Canadian and Mexican agreements are
modified to include them within their coverage.
B. Wastes Regulated By The Convention
The regulatory regime established by the Convention
applies to any waste belonging to a category listed in Annex I
which exhibits a characteristic listed in Annex III, and to
"other wastes", defined in Annex II as household wastes and
residues arising from their incineration. In addition, these
wastes must be destined for one of the disposal operations
described in Annex IV to be covered by the Convention. The
current U.S. export regime applies only to those wastes defined
as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA and does not extend to
household wastes and residues arising from their incineration.
Several statutory and regulatory changes will also be required
to extend RCRA's export provisions to wastes which are
controlled under the Convention, notably infectious wastes,
that are not defined as hazardous under U.S. law.
EPA and State concur that these additional wastes should
be subject to export control. While management of these
09/13/89 14:11
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
07
- 6 -
"non-hazardous" wastes is regulated in the U.S. to a lesser
degree than hazardous wastes, there does not appear to be any
reason to exempt these wastes from such export requirements as
notice and consent. Moreover, any waste may present hazards to
the human health and the environment if a minimal standard for
treatment and disposal is not met. The Convention would not
dictate that such wastes be subject to the same management
requirements as hazardous wastes but would require that their
export be prohibited if there is reason to believe
environmentally sound management will not occur. There are
also foreign policy concerns related to exports of these
"non-hazardous" wastes. Highly publicized incidents in the
recent past, the Islip garbage barge and the Khian Sea
Philadelphia ash shipment, have involved "non-hazardous" wastes
not currently regulated for export purposes under RCRA.
Our current bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada do
not control shipments of household wastes or residues arising
from their incineration. EPA has determined that there are
currently no shipments of these wastes to either Canada or
Mexico. Future exports of these wastes, however, may be
affected regardless of U.S. signature of the Convention if
Canada or Mexico become party to the Convention. (Both have
already signed the agreement.) If the U.S. does not become a
party to the Convention, these countries would be required to
ban exports to and imports from the U.S. of these wastes unless
our current agreements were modified to include them within
their regulatory scope. In practice, the regulation of these
additional wastes is likely only to impact upon future trade
with Canada since Mexico will only accept wastes for recycling
or recovery industries; household wastes, and to a large
extent, municipal ash, are not typically recycled.
C. Prohibition on Waste Exports to Antarctica
The Convention prohibits the export of wastes for disposal
within Antarctica. (Article 4(6)) As a policy matter, both
OES and EPA agree that exports of hazardous and other wastes to
Antarctica should not be permitted. The U.S. has always
considered that Antarctica's pristine environment warranted
special protection and has encouraged international efforts to
preserve its unique character.
RCRA currently would not authorize a ban on exports of
wastes to Antarctica. While the National Science Foundation
could promulgate the regulations necessary to implement this
obligation, EPA has indicated that it would be administratively
easier for it to implement the ban and is thus considering
seeking appropriate authority under RCRA.
09/13/89 14:12
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
08
- 7 -
D. Illegal Shipments
Article 9 requires that the exporting state assume
responsiblity for wastes illegally shipped if the illegality
was committed by an exporter who is unable to assume
responsiblity for the wastes. A similar obligation exists for
importing parties where the illegality was committed by the
importer or disposer. Where responsiblity for the illegal
shipment cannot be determined, the parties are required to
cooperate to ensure the environmentally sound disposal of the
wastes. As is more fully discussed in the attached legal
memorandum, obligations relating to illegal shipments do not
extend to the clean-up of wastes illegally shipped.
The U.S. does not have current statutory authority to take
responsibility for wastes illegally shipped. As a matter of
policy, OES and EPA believe that such authority is warranted
and that this is a logical extension of a policy premised on
the principal that wastes should be disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner. In addition, the potential
foreign policy ramifications of illegal shipments from the U.S.
would be reduced if the U.S. had ready authority to take
responsiblity for wastes illegally shipped by its exporters.
E. Restrictions On Exports
The Convention provides in Article 4(9) that exports of
hazardous wastes and other wastes may only proceed under
specified circumstances. Exports may not proceed unless
destined for recycling or recovery industries or the "state of
export does not have the technical capacity and the necessary
facilities, capacity or suitable disposal sites in order to
dispose of the wastes in question in an environmentally sound
and efficient manner". The relative costs of disposal in the
importing and exporting country may be considered to the extent
such costs relate to the factors identified (i.e. technical
capacity, necessary facilities, capacity etc.). Exports may
proceed where disposal is less costly, (i.e. the importing
country has more efficient facilities or capacity) even if the
efficiency accrues as a result of standards relating to sites,
facilities or capacity in the importing country that are less
stringent than RCRA so long as the disposal contemplated is
consistent with the environmentally sound management of
wastes.
If the U.S. were to implement the Convention through
subsequent agreements with receiving countries, those agreement
could only allow exports under the conditions noted above.
09/13/89 14:12
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
09
- 8 -
III. Other Issues
A. Recycling and Recovery Operations
Materials destined for recycling operations are only
covered by the Convention if a party to the transboundary
movement considers such materials hazardous wastes under its
domestic legislation. A chapeau to this effect was included in
Annex IV, Section B, which sets forth recycling and recovery
operations. If the exporting party does not consider materials
destined for these operations as hazardous wastes under its
domestic legislation then it is not required to implement the
Convention with respect to those materials. Thus, the United
States is not required to implement the controls of the
Convention with respect to wastes destined for recycling which
are not legally defined as hazardous wastes under U.S. law.
However, if another party to the transboundary movement does
define such material as a hazardous waste, that party is
responsible for implementing certain obligations of the
Convention with respect to them.
B. Application of Notice and Consent
Requirements For Passage Through The
Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone
The application of the Convention's notice and consent
requirements to passage of ships carrying hazardous wastes
through the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
of a coastal state was extensively debated throughout the
negotiations. The U.S. and others strongly resisted such
requirements, maintaining that they would be unwarranted
restrictions on the exercise of the right of innocent passage
and freedom of navigation through the EEZ, rights
well-established under customary international law as reflected
in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The Convention includes in Article 4, %11 a saving clause
which states that none of its provisions shall affect the
navigational rights and freedoms of ships. The U.S. and other
like minded states made clear in conjunction with adoption of
the Convention that, for them, the Convention does not require
notice or consent for transit of vessels exercising
navigational freedoms and rights under customary international
law. In light of the importance of this issue to U.S. maritime
rights, the U.S. will make a similar statement, in accordance
with the guidance set forth in the attached legal memorandum,
at the time we deposit our instrument of ratification.
09/13/89 14:13
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
10
- 9 -
C. Marine Disposal of Wastes
The Basel Convention applies to disposal of wastes at sea,
including sea bed insertion and sea incineration in the
territorial sea and exclusive economic zone of another state.
Article 11 would allow the London Dumping Convention ("LDC") to
operate as the exclusive regulatory regime for movements
between parties to the LDC. It is likely, however, that the
LDC will be reviewed in light of the Basel Convention. Such a
review was specifically called for in two resolutions adopted
at the Diplomatic Conference.
The requirements of the Basel Convention would operate
with respect to non-parties to the LDC. The Basel requirements
are substantially similar to those contained in the LDC and the
U.S., as a policy matter, would support application of them to
states which are not participating in the LDC regime. If a
state is not a party to either the Basel Convention or the
London Dumping Convention, the parties are required to ban
exports to them (unless a separate agreement is concluded
pursuant to Article 11 which regulates such activities). OES
and EPA believe that this is an appropriate incentive for
states to participate in a regime controlling marine disposal
of wastes; the U.S. supported a similar resolution in the LDC
context. (LDC Resolution 29.10)
D. Transit Countries
The Convention requires parties to notify all transit
states of a proposed transboundary movement of wastes and to
obtain the written consent of transit parties unless they agree
to a tacit consent procedure. The U.S. currently provides
notice to transit states but does not require their consent
prior to export. This additional requirement would not be
unduly burdensome particularly since the vast majority of U.S.
waste exports are shipped to Canada and Mexico or by sea
directly to the U.K., with no transit country involved.
IV. Form of the Agreement
As is discussed in the attached legal memorandum, the
Convention will be concluded as a treaty pursuant to Article
II, section 2 of the Constitution and will be submitted to the
Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
V. Domestic Regulatory Activities
The attached legal memorandum describes the additional
legislative authority and regulatory changes necessary for the
09/13/89 14:14
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
11
- 10 -
U.S. to implement the Convention. EPA and OES are currently
drafting appropriate implementing legislation. The U.S. will
not deposit its instrument of ratification of the Convention
until the additional statutory authority has been enacted and
the necessary regulatory changes have been made.
VI. Environmental Impact Statement
The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., and Executive Order 12114 of
January 4, 1979, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal
Actions are being considered to determine whether an
environmental impact statement (EIS) or other environmental
documentation should be prepared. A final determination need
not be made at this time since signature of the ) agreement would
not constitute the "major federal action" in this case. It is
at the time of ratification that the U.S. would be legally
obligated to implement the Convention's provisions. (A final
determination regarding NEPA considerations may be made in
conjunction with obtaining the necessary legislation to
implement the Convention.) Some preliminary considerations,
however, should be noted.
With respect to NEPA, there should be no significant
environmental impacts in the United States from imports of
hazardous wastes from parties since under current law imports
must comply with domestic environmental safeguards. The
Convention would not alter these requirements. In addition,
both the RCRA export provisions and the domestic requirements
applicable to imports have undergone procedures constituting
the functional equivalent of NEPA procedures. Thus, to the
extent the agreement can be implemented within existing laws
and regulations, the functional equivalency doctrine may
apply. This doctrine renders the procedural requirements of
NEPA inapplicable where federal regulatory action is
circumscribed by extensive procedures, including public
participation, for evaluating environmental issues and is taken
by an agency with recognized environmental expertise.
Executive Order 12114, which outlines procedures for
reviewing the environmental effects abroad of major federal
actions, exempts from its requirements export approvals. The
primary activity provided for under the Convention with effects
outside the United States appears to fall within this
exemption.
In addition, the Executive Order is inapplicable where the
foreign country is participating with the United States or is
otherwise involved in the action. The parties to the
Convention agree to the procedures established for exports to
09/13/89 14:14
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
12
- 11 -
their territories of hazardous and other wastes. The
Convention's effects on areas outside the jurisdiction of any
nation seem prima facie environmentally beneficial since waste
exports to Antarctica are prohibited under the Convention and
the agreement sets forth requirements similar to those of the
LDC for dumping in marine areas.
VII. Funding
The Convention itself does not include mandatory financial
obligations. Pursuant to Article 15(3), the Parties at their
first meeting are to decide financial rules by consensus. In
signing and ratifying the Convention, however, the United
States would be making a commitment in principle to pay its
fair share of the expenses of a secretariat and meetings of the
parties.
Secretariat services will be provided, at least initially,
by the UNEP Secretariat. (During the negotiations, the U.S.
made clear that it would not support a separate Secretariat for
this agreement.) The UNEP Secretariat has estimated that the
annual expense to the United States for services relating to
the Convention rendered by the Secretariat would be
approximately $50,000.
Article 14 of the Convention, Financial Aspects, provides
that regional centers should be established to assist parties
in wastes management and minimization. Article 14 provides
that such centers, if established, would be funded through
voluntary contributions only. In addition, Article 14 provides
that the Parties shall consider the establishment of a
revolving fund to assist, on an interim basis, in emergencies
arising during the transboundary movement of wastes or their
disposal. The U.S. by signing or becoming a party the
agreement incurs no legal commitment to contribute to either
the emergency fund or the establishment of regional centers.
As a party to the Convention, the U.S. would be obligated
to undertake, either bilaterally or multilaterally, cooperative
efforts to improve monitoring of the effects of hazardous
wastes on health and the environment, the development of
technical guidelines and information exchanges. EPA will seek
funding as appropriate within its own priorities to participate
in any cooperative programs resulting from the Convention. In
addition, the Convention's provisions relating to illegal
shipments under Article 9 may require expenditure of government
funds.
09/13/89 14:15
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
13
- 12 -
VIII. Public and Congressional Consultations
There have been extensive consultations with concerned
agencies and departments, members of Congress and their staffs,
environmental groups and the waste management and chemical
industries throughout the negotiation of the Convention. There
is general support for effective international control of
exports of hazardous wastes by concerned industry groups,
including the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the waste
management industry. There have been no objections raised by
these groups to controlling household wastes and residues
arising from their incineration.
We have recently briefed congressional staffs of the House
and Senate. A concurrent resolution is pending in the House of
Representatives urging the President to sign and submit the
Convention to the Senate for ratification. Environmental
groups participated as observers in the negotiations and
support the Convention although Greenpeace does not believe the
agreement goes far enough since it does not prohibit all
exports of wastes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That you authorize signature by the United States of
the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements
of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.
Approve
Disapprove
2. That you sign the attached full power (Tab 1)
authorizing Ambassador Pickering or Ambassador Okun, in his
absence, to sign the Basel Convention on behalf of the United
States at the UN Headquarters in New York.
09/13/89 14:15
6475947 STATE DEPT OES/E
& 14
- 13 -
Drafted:L/OES:CCorken
Wang 38530
Clearances:
OES/E: ASens (Acting)
L:ADSofaer
L: AKreczko
L/OES:DSmall
L/T:GTaft
EPA/OIA:SHajost
EPA/OSW:SLawrence
EPA/OSW: MStrauss
EPA/OGC:GYamada
EPA/OGC: LFreidman
EPA/OGC: TKeenen
EPA/OGC: PSavage
OES/OSP:TScully
DOC: JRSpradley
DOT: CTucker
DOJ: DCarr
DOD/OASD/ISA/PNR:DHardy
CG: FPresley
OMB: RFairweather
DOI: IGoklany
DOE: TWilliams
CEQ: DBear
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1990
President Bush's environmental record in brief
Since his inaugural, President Bush has advanced numerous
environmental initiatives (listed below).
In approaching these initiatives, the President has sought to
balance the need for increased environmental protection with the
need for continued economic growth.
LEGISLATIVE
Proposed the first amendments to the Clean Air Act in over a
decade to reduce emissions that cause acid rain, smog and
air pollution. A compromise was passed by the Senate and
awaits decision by the House.
Increased research on global climate change by 43% in 1990
and proposed an additional 57% increase to $1 billion for
1991. Is hosting an international White House Conference on
global change this month.
Proposed elevating the Environmental Protection Agency to
Cabinet-level status.
Presented a budget which expands the EPA's operating
programs by 12% and adds three quarters of a billion dollars
to an aggressive effort to clean up wastes at federal
facilities around the country.
Expanded our parks, forests, refuges and other public lands
by proposing $450 million in spending for land acquisition.
Increased funding for Clean Coal technology.
REGULATORY
Banned most uses of asbestos.
Stopped the importation of all African ivory into this
country, a move already beginning to show evidence of
beneficial effect.
Proposed the cancellation of the pesticide "alar", as well
as some 40 uses of EDBC's, a family of pesticides commonly
applied to food crops and suspected of being harmful to
health.
Began developing a proposal to assure that hazardous wastes
are not indiscriminately exported to foreign countries, and
endorsed the U.S. entry into a U.N. convention to require
environmentally sound management of exports of hazardous,
infectious and household wastes and municipal incinerator
trash.
OTHER ACTIONS
Launched a program that would promote the planting of a
billion new trees a year in America as part of the "America
the Beautiful" initiative.
Committed to a full phase-out of CFC's, with appropriate
attention given to safe substitutes, in order to protect the
stratospheric ozone layer and offered to host the first
negotiating session aimed at developing an international
treaty on climate change.
Began developing the country's first goal of no-net-loss of
wetlands policy, and recently approved an agreement between
the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA that significantly
strengthens procedures in effect a year ago.
Encouraged international cooperation and commitment through
the Presidents' emphasis on environmental issues at the
economic summit and bilateral meetings with allies and other
world leaders over the past year.
Offered technical assistance to Eastern Bloc countries now
trying to save national environments after years of
Communist rule.
Began training Peace Corps volunteers in pollution
prevention and reforestation techniques.
Started a pilot tracking program to prevent the type of
medical waste wash-ups that plagued beaches around the
country only two years ago.
Re-directed the Superfund programs toward "enforcement
first,' with emphasis on more permanent remedies for
abandoned hazardous waste sites.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1990
President Bush's environmental record in brief
Since his inaugural, President Bush has acted on the following
environmental concerns:
Banned most uses of asbestos.
Stopped the importation of all ivory into this country, a
move already beginning to show evidence of beneficial effect
on Africa's dwindling elephant herds.
Proposed a billion dollar a year research program on global
climate change and is hosting an international White House
Conference on global change this month.
Started a pilot tracking program to prevent the type of
medical waste wash-ups that plagued beaches around the
country only two years ago.
Presented a budget which expands the EPA's operating
programs by twelve percent, and adds three quarters of a
billion dollars to an aggressive effort to clean up wastes
at federal facilities around the country.
Canceled alar, as well as proposed to cancel some 40 uses of
EDBCs, a family of pesticides commonly applied to food crops
and suspected of being harmful to health.
Expanded our parks and wildlife refuges by proposing $450
million in spending for land acquisition.
Begun developing a proposal to assure that hazardous wastes
are not indiscriminately exported to foreign countries, and
endorsed the U.S. entry into a U.N. convention to help
achieve this goal.
Re-directed the Superfund programs toward "enforcement
first, " with emphasis on more permanent remedies for
abandoned hazardous waste sites.
Proposed that cars be designed to give off less evaporative
emissions of gasoline and reversed a previous loosening of
national fuel efficiency standards.
Began a procedure to evaluate the Two Forks dam project in
colorado with regard to environmental objections.
(Additionally, the Big River project in Rhode Island was
rejected to save wetlands and other environmental
resources.)
Launched a program that would promote the planting of a
billion new trees a year in America.
Began developing the country's first no-net-loss of wetlands
policy, and recently approved an agreement between the Army
Corps of Engineers and EPA that significantly strengthens
procedures in effect a year ago.
Committed to a full phase-out of CFC's, with appropriate
attention given to safe substitutes, in order to protect the
stratospheric ozone layer and offered to host the first
negotiating session aimed at developing an international
treaty on climate change.
Offered technical assistance to all Eastern Bloc countries
now trying to save national environments unbelievably
ravaged after years of Communist rule.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1990
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID DEMAREST
SUBJECT:
EARTH DAY EVENTS
The following is a compilation of environmental events and
actions surrounding Earth Day in which you participated. When
you would like to discuss our plans for the 21st anniversary of
Earth Day please let me know.
SPECIFIC EARTH DAY EVENTS
1)
Signing of Earth Day Proclamation on January 3.
2)
EPA Journal article on Earth Day for April edition.
3)
Washington Times guest editorial on Earth Day.
4)
Earth Day video message for the United States Information
Agency's WorldNet television network. The message was
broadcast worldwide to embassies, consulates and America
Houses on April 22.
5)
Written message for the National Celebration of the Outdoors
Earth Day mobilization event in Rock Creek Park on April 1.
6)
Rose Garden reception held on April 18 in honor of Earth
Day.
7)
Phone call on April 22 with Jim Whittaker and the Earth Day
20 International Peace Climb.
8)
Phone call on April 22 to Ed Furia and the Earth Day 20
rally at the Columbia River Gorge.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS INDIRECTLY RELATED TO EARTH DAY/WEEK
1)
Naming of environmental "Points of Light, " April 16 through
April 22.
2)
Message for the winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize.
3)
Message for the National "March for Parks, " March 23.
4)
Speeches to the Conference on Climate Change.
5)
Handing out saplings at the Easter Egg Roll, April 16.
6)
Signing of the "National Recycling Month" proclamation with
the Birmingham Southern Conservancy, Birmingham, Alabama,
April 20.
7)
Announcement of "Area to be Avoided" with Reef Relief in
Islamorada, Florida, April 22.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date:
3-16-90
call
crang
FOR: Gov. Sununu
FROM:
ANDY CARD Audy
re. OCS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
FYI - as requested
The only people who have this
are David Bates, his staffer Barry
McBee, Bob Grady and the two
S/us. of us.
March 16, 1990
SUMMARY
The final report of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing and
Development Task Force was delivered to the White House on
January 5. The report is the work of the Cabinet-level Task
Force, comprised of Secretaries Lujan (who served as chairman)
and Watkins, Administrators Reilly and Knauss and Director
Darman, announced by you in your budget message to Congress in
February 1989. In that budget message you charged the Task Force
to study and resolve environmental concerns regarding the
potential adverse effects of three OCS lease sales scheduled for
FY 1990 that were delayed: Sale 116 off the southwestern coast
of Florida; Sale 95 off southern California; and Sale 91 off
northern California.
In developing options for your consideration, the Task Force
examined the issues of air quality, the risks of oil spills,
changes in onshore infrastructure and land use due to these lease
sales, and the impacts of these sales on protected lands and
species and other wildlife, commercial fishing, water quality,
and tourism and recreation. The Task Force commissioned an
analysis of the adequacy of scientific and technical information
available for making leasing decisions in the three areas from
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report concluded
that there was a lack of some océanographic, ecological or
socioeconomic data for each area, although the study is subject
to some criticism for calling for an unreasonable level of data.
In its eight-month process the Task Force solicited extensive
input from the public and members of Congress. The public and
most elected officials in the two states are generally opposed to
the sales. The Task Force also uncovered wide dissatisfaction
with the OCS program, as local residents who are most affected by
OCS activities often do not receive commensurate financial
benefits and feel they have little opportunity for participation
in decision-making.
The Task Force presented specific options for decisions on each
sale (four options for the Florida sale and three for each
California sale). The Task Force made no recommendations among
the various options. Additional options have been developed by
White House staff and members of the Task Force independently.
The Task Force also presented, and staff has developed, general
options to be addressed in connection with these three sales and
the overall OCS program.
Set forth below are summaries of the options developed by the
Task Force and the White House staff. A full presentation of
those options, and supporting discussion of the respective pros
and cons, is found in the accompanying decision memorandum. The
decision memorandum also provides more extensive information
regarding the Task Force deliberations.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
09. Report
Summary of OCS Leasing and Development Task Force
3/16/90
P/5
Report
Options section redacted (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By
JP
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Task Force Options for Sales
Option A
Florida -- Cancel sale and defer leasing decision until
additional oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic data
identified by NAS have been collected.
As for existing leases in same area, proceed with exploration and
development decisions under normal procedures.
California
A-1 -- Proceed with preparations for lease sales but defer
leasing decisions until the additional oceanographic (southern
California) and socioeconomic (southern and northern California)
data identified by NAS have been collected.
A-2 -- Cancel sales and defer subsequent leasing decisions
until additional oceanographic (southern California) and
socioeconomic data (southern and northern California) identified
by NAS have been collected.
Option B
Florida -- Cancel sale and exclude area from consideration for
the 1992-1997 OCS five-year leasing program.
As for existing leases, begin discussions with Florida and
existing lessees to facilitate state purchase of leases.
California -- Defer leasing decisions on both sales until 1992-
1997 five-year program and, if sales go forward, offer tracts
only in limited geographic areas (Santa Maria and Outer San Diego
Basins off southern California and Eel River Basin off northern
California).
Option C
Florida -- Cancel sale and exclude area from consideration for
both 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs.
As for existing leases, begin discussions with Florida regarding
its purchase of leases and initiate procedures that could lead to
cancellation of existing leases under OCS Lands Act.
California -- Cancel sales and exclude areas from consideration
for 1992-1997 five-year program.
Options Not Identified by Task Force
A. Proceed with sales in Florida and California under existing
OCS Lands Act process.
B. Cancel sales in Florida and California and exclude from
consideration for 1992-1997 program at this time; if additional
studies to obtain data identified by NAS show leasing possible in
environmentally sensitive manner, add tracts to 1992-1997
program.
C.
Delay decisions until final National Energy Strategy
submitted in December.
D. Cancel sales and impose permanent ban on lease sales in
three areas.
Other Actions Recommended by Task Force to Address Environmental
Concerns in Areas of Sales and Deficiencies in OCS Program
A. Air Quality. In southern and northern California, establish
air quality controls for OCS activities that are substantially
equivalent to those applied onshore. The Minerals Management
Service already has efforts underway to develop a new proposed
rulemaking to achieve this objective.
B. Commercial Fishing. In northern California, evaluate the
effects of OCS activities on commercial fisheries and institute
measures to reduce conflicts.
C. Oil Spill Contingency Planning and Response Capabilities.
Develop improved means of assessing risks of oil spills; revise
requirements for OCS oil spill contingency response plans to
improve their effectiveness and prepare special plans for
protected lands; and, where feasible, require transportation of
oil by pipeline.
D. Tanker Traffic. Institute a Coast Guard study of the
feasibility of moving tanker routes away from sensitive areas.
E. Protected Lands and Species. Defer sensitive protected
lands from development or take steps to minimize and mitigate
impacts; and focus greater attention on protected species.
F. Water Quality. Study the long-term effects of OCS
activities on water quality and institute special mitigation
programs in sensitive areas.
G. Adverse Socioeconomic Effects. Have the MMS take greater
note of local concerns that could lead to conflicts over land
use and in other areas and play a larger mediative role in
resolving conflicts between industry and local governments.
H. Restructuring of OCS Program. Direct the Secretary of the
Interior to study restructuring of revenue-sharing and decision-
making provisions of OCS Lands Act and OCS program.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
10. Paper
Options presented by the OCS Leasing and Development
3/16/90
P-5
Task Force (18 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By
(NLGB)
5/12/05
on
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA}
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA].
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
March 16, 1990
I.
ISSUE
A decision on the options presented by the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing and Development Task
Force is needed.
II. BACKGROUND
In your February 9, 1989 budget message to Congress,
honoring a pledge made during the campaign, you imposed a
moratorium on three controversial OCS lease sales
scheduled for fiscal year 1990 -- Sale 116 in the Gulf of
Mexico off the southwestern coast of Florida, Sale 95 off
the coast of southern California, and Sale 91 off the
coast of northern California -- pending a review of the
environmental effects of the sales by a Cabinet-level
task force. The California sales had been subject to
Congressionally-imposed moratoria in 1987, 1988 and 1989
and the Florida sale became subject to a Congressionally-
imposed moratorium last year.
The Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) were named as members of the Task Force and
charged with making recommendations on the future of the
lease sales within one year.
In fulfilling its charge, the Task Force conducted
briefings and public workshops in Florida and California,
hearing from over 1,000 witnesses, met with Members of
Congress from those two states and other parts of the
country, and received over 11,000 written comments. It
also commissioned and received a study from the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) addressing the adequacy of the
scientific and technical data available on which
decisions on the three lease sales could be made.
The Task Force delivered its report to the White House on
January 5.
III. DISCUSSION
A. POLICY GOALS
The OCS leasing program is governed by the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act and overseen by the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) within the Interior Department.
(A description of the program is found at Appendix A.)
The program has been the focus of controversy in recent
years over the environmental effects of offshore oil and
2
gas exploration and development. The controversy has
resulted in yearly Congressional moratoria on certain
lease sales and even on some pre-lease planning
activities. The policy goal of the decisions on these
three lease sales, which will inevitably affect the
entire OCS program, must be to reconcile the need for
adequate domestic energy supplies through robust
exploration and development on the OCS and the need for
long-term protection of sensitive environments and
ecosystems. An additional goal must be to regain
Executive branch control of the OCS program by addressing
Congressional and local concerns and removing their
stranglehold on the program.
B. RESOURCE POTENTIAL
The decisions with respect to these three lease sales
must take into account their relationship to the total
oil and gas resources of the U.S. The MMS has developed
mean estimates for the undiscovered economically
recoverable (using existing technology) oil and gas
resources derivable from (1) the U.S. as a whole,
including the OCS, (2) the entire OCS, (3) the Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), (4) the existing leases
in the three planning areas in which these sales are
located and (5) the leases involved in the sales.
Appendix B is a table setting forth the relative oil and
gas resources available from all of these areas. As you
can see, the three sales represent about 1.6 percent of
all U.S. oil resources and about 0.4 percent of all U.S.
gas resources, equivalent to about one-sixth of the
resources available from ANWR.
It should be noted that the Office of Management and
Budget has already eliminated any projected revenues from
these three sales from its budget projections. The
decisions on the sales therefore have no impact on, and
should not be considered as an issue relevant to, the
budget.
C. RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO OCS
PROGRAM
The relationship of state and local governments and their
constituents to the OCS program is also a relevant issue.
The federal government's perspective on the OCS program
is premised on its role in the nation's overall energy
strategy, with its national security and economic
implications. In administering the OCS program the
federal government also exercises its national
stewardship functions to manage and protect scarce and
valuable environmental resources on public lands.
3
State and local governments, on the other hand, represent
more parochial interests of the people who will
experience the direct impact of OCS development. Most of
the financial benefit of OCS leasing and development
accrues to the federal government (states receive 100
percent of revenues from OCS leases within the first
three miles of shore, 27 percent of revenues from OCS
leases three to twelve miles from shore, and nothing from
leases further than twelve miles offshore). Further, the
residents of the localities most directly affected by OCS
activity may or may not benefit proportionately from the
revenues received by the state if those revenues are
spent elsewhere. Despite the opportunities-granted for
participation in the OCS process, persons affected by
federal OCS decisions often feel that their interests
have not been represented; this likely accounts for the
contentious nature of many recent OCS decisions.
Although not a subject directly addressed by the Task
Force, the concept of restructuring the OCS program to
give states a greater share of the revenues arose during
your meeting with the Task Force. Many members of the
Administration feel, however, that this type of local
revenue-sharing will not be enough to engender support by
these coastal states and localities for the OCS program.
D. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) STUDY
The Task Force asked the NAS to study the adequacy of the
scientific and technical data available on which
decisions for the three lease sales could be made. The
NAS report concluded that generally there are not
adequate oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic data
on which to base a lease/no lease decision, but that the
adequacy varies by lease sale. The NAS conclusions are
as follows:
Sale
Oceanographic Ecological
Socioeconomic
Florida
marginal
inadequate
inadequate
N. Cal.
adequate
adequate
inadequate
S. Cal.
inadequate
adequate
doubtful
The NAS recommended that no decision be made on
proceeding with the lease sales until further studies are
conducted, although it did not specifically identify
those studies which must be conducted in order to have a
complete data base. There is no clear consensus as to
the length of time needed to conduct adequate studies.
Staff of the Task Force estimates that it could take as
long as five to six years in Florida and as little as two
to three years in northern California.
4
Questions regarding the value of the NAS study and the
weight it should be accorded have been raised. Some
allege that the strictest academic "peer review" standard
was used to assess the available data, which would be far
greater than the standard generally used in making
governmental decisions. Such a standard could be seen as
unreasonable in a real world context, imposing a burden
that could rarely if ever be sustained, particularly when
weighed against the costs necessary to meet such a
standard and the benefits of the OCS program.
The NAS was also requested to study the adequacy of
resource estimate methodology used by the MMS. The NAS
report concluded that the MMS methodology for developing
resource estimates is adequate and sound.
E. LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
As noted in Section II above, in preparing the report the
Task Force conducted local meetings in Florida and
California. These were designed to give the Task Force
the opportunity to discuss the proposed sales with state
and local officials, scientists, business leaders and
other interested groups and with members of the general
public. Demonstrations in opposition to leasing were
held at each of the nine public workshops. In addition,
the vast majority of persons who spoke at the meetings
were adamant in their opposition to new leasing. Local
opposition to leasing does not appear to have lessened,
and in fact may have strengthened. An August California
Poll found that 75 percent of those surveyed opposed more
drilling off the coast, the highest level of opposition
yet expressed in a statewide poll.
State and local officials are also generally unanimously
opposed to the sales. In Florida, the entire
Congressional delegation, Governor Martinez and all local
elected officials oppose new leasing, and in fact also
oppose exploration on existing leases off southeastern
Florida. Both California Senators oppose new leasing, as
do virtually all local elected officials. The California
Congressional delegation is split on the issue, although
all affected coastal representatives oppose new leasing.
Governor Deukmajian is generally supportive of further
offshore development.
F. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
In analyzing the three lease sales, the Task Force
identified and addressed six specific environmental
concerns: (1) air quality; (2) the risks of oil spills;
(3) the impact of OCS activity on commercial fishing; (4)
5
the effects of OCS activity on protected lands and
species; (5) water quality; and (6) socioeconomic
impacts. The general findings of the Task Force with
respect to these six areas are found at Appendix C.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
A.
Decisions on Lease Sales
The Task Force presented eleven separate options for the
lease sales, three for the Florida sale and four for each
California sale. White House staff and the individual
departments represented_on the Task Force have also
identified other options, including those at the extreme
ends of the spectrum. All of the options for the lease
sales are set forth below (Task Force options first,
followed by options developed by staff) and accompanied
by supporting discussion of their pros and cons. It
should be noted that the members of the Task Force agreed
only to include within their final report options that
all members could agree would be acceptable, so some of
the new options that have been developed may have been
considered by the Task Force and may be supported by
individual members.
Task Force Options for Sales
Option A
Sale 116 (Florida)
Cancel the sale and defer subsequent decision until the
additional oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic
data identified by the NAS have been collected.
As for existing leases, proceed with exploration and
development decisions under normal procedures.
Sales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern
California)
A-1 -- Proceed with preparations for the lease sales
but defer final decisions until the additional
oceanographic (southern California) and socioeconomic
(southern and northern California) data identified by the
NAS have been collected.
A-2 -- Cancel the sales and defer subsequent decisions
until the additional oceanographic (southern California)
and socioeconomic data (southern and northern California)
identified by the NAS have been collected.
6
Discussion -- Under these options, leasing in both
Florida and California could occur as part of the 1992-
1997 five-year plan, which may be proposed by Secretary
Lujan as early as this month. These are pro-petroleum
industry options that signal the Administration's
continued commitment to OCS development and affirm to the
greatest extent the Interior Secretary's discretion over
OCS decisions, consistent with current law. They
recognize that the OCS is a national resource the
development of which will not be unduly subject to local
citizens' views. They will likely meet with strong
criticism, however, particularly on the ground that a
decision to cancel the sales of the leases, followed
almost immediately by the inclusion of the same leases in
the next five-year program, smacks of hypocrisy. This
criticism can be partially rebutted by responding to the
environmental concerns identified by the NAS and imposing
additional environmental restrictions on new leases.
Allowing exploration and development to proceed on the
Florida leases using normal procedures avoids any
interference with current lessees and any "takings"
problems that could arise.
Option B
Sale 116 (Florida)
Cancel the sale and exclude the area from consideration
for the 1992-1997 five-year program.
As for existing leases, proceed with exploration and
development decisions under normal procedures but begin
discussions with the state and existing lessees regarding
the state's purchase of the leases.
Sales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern
California)
Defer decisions on the sales until the 1992-1997 five-
year program, conducting additional oceanographic
(southern California) and socioeconomic (southern and
northern California) studies; if the sales go forward,
offer tracts only in limited geographic areas (the Santa
Maria and San Diego Outer Basins off southern California
and the Eel River Basin off northern California).
Discussion -- These are the middle-ground, compromise
options. Leasing could occur off California after 1992
(which, given current Congressional moratoria and the
time required to complete the studies arising from the
NAS report, may be as soon as leasing could occur in any
7
event), but would be restricted to areas where
development would be less intrusive and to smaller areas
so that environmentally-sensitive features such as the
Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary could
be protected. Leasing off Florida would be delayed for
at least seven years until 1997. The petroleum industry
should find this an acceptable option, as it does not
preclude development. There is less certainty that the
environmental community will accept it as a reasonable
compromise. The delays should, however, allow the
Interior Department to complete the studies identified by
the NAS, and this can be used to rebut environmental
concerns.
Beginning discussions with Florida regarding its purchase
of the existing leases imposes some burden on it to
protect its tourist industry and natural resources, which
is reasonable given that the state has also allowed
development in this area. This could open the door to
moves by the environmental community to cancel the
leases, however.
Option c
Sale 116 (Florida)
Cancel the sale and exclude the area from consideration
for both the 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs.
As for existing leases, begin discussions with the state
and existing lessees regarding the state's purchase of
the leases and have Interior initiate procedures that
could lead to cancellation of the existing leases (which
would suspend further exploration or development).
Sales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern
California)
Cancel the sales (and the next scheduled sales in both
areas) and exclude the areas from consideration for the
1992-1997 five-year program.
Discussion -- These are the most restrictive, pro-
environmental options, precluding lease sales off Florida
until at least 2002 and off California until at least
1997. They do not constitute the permanent ban on
leasing in the three areas which some environmentalists
seek, however. These options could alleviate pressures
in Congress for the creation of ocean sanctuaries or
permanent bans on leasing.
8
The move to cancel the existing leases off Florida would
be particularly welcomed by environmentalists and would
respond to one of the criticisms of the NAS, namely that
leasing always leads to future development without any
subsequent analysis of environmental impacts. There are
questions about the ability of the Interior Department to
cancel the leases under current law, however, which
requires a finding of existing environmental harm.
These options are also the ones on which the FY 1991
budget is based, [including provision in the budget for
repurchase of the existing leases off Florida, valued at
the lesser of the amount of lease bonuses paid
(approximately $107.5 million) or the lease bonus amount
plus investment to date], so no adverse impact would
result if this course were chosen.
Options Not Identified by Task Force
A. Proceed with lease sales under existing OCS Lands Act
process. Pre-lease activities would be reactivated at
the point at which they were stopped by the Presidential
moratorium.
Discussion -- This is one of the two extreme options.
It would essentially reject both the NAS study and the
report of the Task Force and proceed with "business as
usual." It could be perceived as a complete sell-out to
the petroleum industry and would likely be severely
criticized by the environmental community and probably by
the general public, particularly in the two affected
states.
B. Cancel the sales, excluding them at this time from
the 1992-1997 five-year program, and directing that
future decisions on lease sales in these areas will be
made only after the data identified as deficient by the
NAS have been identified and collected; if the studies
subsequently show that leasing can be done in an
environmentally acceptable manner, add the tracts to the
1992-1997 five-year program.
Discussion This is a new option proposed by the
Energy Department. It allows decisive action on the
sales and the OCS program as a whole; it also
acknowledges that a more objective and scientific basis
is needed for decision-making. It avoids an arbitrary
decision to defer leasing or delete tracts from
consideration for leasing by holding the door open for
later inclusion of the leases in the 1992-1997 five-year
program; as such, it could thwart the efforts of those
who would use a cancellation decision as the precedent
9
for seeking further arbitrary bans on OCS activities
elsewhere.
C. Delay any decision on the sales until the NES is
finalized and submitted in December; concurrently with
the announcement of that course of action, make the OCS
Task Force report public.
Discussion -- This option alleviates the difficulties
posed by making these decisions in the vacuum created
without knowing how they and the future of the OCS
program relate to the NES. It also sends a signal that
the President intends to balance environmental concerns
with energy security and economic requirements. The
delay would likely be greeted favorably by the
environmental community; the petroleum industry may be
disconcerted by the perceived signal that further
development is being significantly slowed, although the
strong link to the NES should offset industry uneasiness.
Delaying the sales also adversely affects the time before
which these resources can be tapped (assuming that some
development goes forward). The release of the report
will remove some of the mystery surrounding the
decisions, allow the public to engage in the dialogue and
focus attention on the necessity for further scientific
(by collection of the data identified by the NAS) and
economic (by the NES) analysis of the decisions and the
overall domestic energy situation.
D. Cancel the sales and impose a permanent ban on lease
sales in the three areas.
Discussion -- This option recognizes the political
reality that no drilling is likely to occur on these
leases in the foreseeable future, given the clear
disposition of the Congress on this matter. OMB has
already eliminated any projections of revenue from these
sales from its budget receipt projections. Implementing
this option could remove the sizeable California and
Florida Congressional delegations from the nationwide
coalition that threatens to jeopardize the entire OCS
program or at least block some future activities. It
could, however, also be used as "evidence" by those
seeking permanent bans on all offshore drilling
activities, even on existing leases, that no OCS
activities are environmentally prudent.
10
B. Decisions on Other Actions Recommended to Address
Environmental Concerns in Areas of Sales and Deficiencies
in OCS Program.
The Task Force also developed recommended options for
addressing various environmental concerns that arise in
the three sale areas (and to a lesser extent throughout
the entire OCS). These options relate to (1) air quality
standards offshore California, (2) conflicts with
commercial fishing, particularly in northern California,
(3) oil spill contingency planning and response
capabilities, (4) tanker traffic, (5) safeguards for
protected lands and species, (6) protection of water
quality, and (7) steps to alleviate adverse socioeconomic
effects of OCS activities. In addition, your staff
developed an option for study of state and local
participation in the OCS program. All of these options
are set forth in Appendix D.
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF OCS PROGRAM
The OCS leasing program is governed by the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act and overseen by the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) within the Interior Department. The sale and
development of leases under the Act is accomplished in five-
year programs, which begin with thorough analyses to assess
the potential reserves derivable from leases and any problems
that would accompany their development. That process starts
more than two years before the beginning date of a five-year
program. The MMS undertakes twelve separate steps as part of
this evaluative process, preparing two drafts of the program
and an environmental impact statement (EIS). The public is
given opportunity to comment at three points in the process
and Congress is also formally notified before a program is
finally approved.
Following final approval of a five-year program, typically
another 24 to 26 months are required before any lease sale can
take place. During this period another EIS is prepared and
additional opportunities for public comment are provided,
along with an opportunity for comment by the governor of the
state offshore which the sale is to occur. Once a sale
occurs, exploration of the leases can take anywhere from 1 to
10 years and development and production can occur over several
decades.
These three lease sales are all part of the 1987-1992 five-
year program. The sales were at different stages when the
moratorium was imposed, and could have been held within five
to sixteen months. The initial steps for the 1992-1997 five-
year program are tentatively scheduled to commence this month
with Secretary Lujan's release of a proposal for comment. The
program development process is expected to take until the
summer of 1992, with the first sale tentatively scheduled for
September 1992. That schedule is not mandated by statute or
administrative rule or regulation, however, and could be
delayed. A delay of up to six months would not significantly
affect the timing of the program and the early sales, as only
one to two months would be lost.
APPENDIX B
RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Oil
do
Gas
oto
(billion of
trillion
of
barrels) Total
cubic ft)
Total
Total U.S. Resources
34.80
263.00
Entire OCS
8.20
23.6
74.00
28.1
ANWR
3.20
9.2
6.90(1)
2.6
Existing Fla. Leases
.14
.4
.30
.1
Existing S. Cal. Leases(2)
.34
1.0
.80
.3
Sale 116
.11
.3
---
Sale 95
.23
.7
.46
.2
Sale 91
.20
.6
.41
.2
(1) Although ANWR is estimated to contain 6.9 trillion cubic
feet of gas, the production of natural gas from ANWR is
considered by some to be uneconomical.
(2) None of the area off northern California has yet been
leased.
APPENDIX C
FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Air Quality. Offshore oil and gas drilling activities produce
the same types of emissions as onshore activities, with the
notable addition of emissions from support vessels and
helicopters. Meteorological conditions may also exist which
consistently drive offshore emissions toward land. Despite
this, the Task Force found that emissions controls currently
imposed by the MMS on offshore drilling are less stringent
than those imposed on similar activities onshore. The effects
of offshore emissions are of greatest concern in southern
California due to the generally already poor air quality;
there are more limited concerns with respect to northern
California also.
Oil Spill Risks. The Task Force found that the risks posed to
coastal and marine resources by oil spills are significant and
that the environmental impact of a major OCS spill would be
severe. It concluded, however, that the increased chances of
a major oil spill caused by OCS drilling activities in the
three areas are small (in the case of Florida and southern
California, only a 1 percent greater risk, and in the case of
northern California an 8 percent greater risk) compared to the
risk of a spill caused by existing activity, such as non-OCS
tanker and barge traffic. The Task Force found that coastal
and marine resources warrant greater protection from possible
oil spills, whatever their source, than is currently provided.
Commercial Fishing. Commercial fishing is a vital economic
activity in all three areas, especially off southern and
northern California. OCS activities pose a variety of
conflicts between the petroleum and fishing industries,
including competition for available space at sea and for port
space onshore. There are also concerns about the loss or
destruction of habitat due to the effects of OCS activities
and the significant risks posed by oil spills. The Task Force
concluded that many of these conflicts can be resolved or
largely mitigated through the recommended use of joint
committees comprised of representatives of the petroleum and
fishing industries in areas where OCS activities are planned.
Protected Lands. Each of these three areas has unique
protected lands, most notably the mangrove-coral reef system
in the Everglades and Florida Keys. The Task Force found that
these sensitive and highly valuable areas now receive only the
same level of protection as that in ordinary areas but that
they warrant additional consideration and heightened
management.
Protected Species. Each of these three areas is inhabited by
species that have been placed under the protection of federal
statutes, most notably the manatees off Florida. The Task
Force concluded that existing protections are sufficient to
protect these species so that a delay in leasing cannot be
justified on this basis alone.
Water Quality. OCS activities can have various impacts on the
water quality near rigs and platforms. Such activity is
currently regulated by EPA under the Clean Water Act through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The Task
Force found that this regulation is adequate in the three
areas. It noted, however (as did the NAS), that information
on the long-term effects of chronic discharges is lacking.
Socioeconomic Impacts. OCS activities, though offshore, have
significant socioeconomic impacts onshore. The Task Force
found that these include the possibility of increased
conflicts over land use and greater demands on infrastructure
that could force changes in the character of an area. Tourism
and recreation can also be adversely affected, although the
Task Force found that this does not appear to be a sufficient
basis for delaying the lease sales. The Task Force concluded
that in these three areas such conflicts can be substantially
reduced through better consultative relationships among the
petroleum industry, government (especially state and local
governments) and other affected parties in planning and
coordinating the onshore activities of OCS lessees.
APPENDIX D
OPTIONS FOR OTHER ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS AND DEFICIENCY IN OCS PROGRAM
A.
Air Quality. Establish air quality controls for the OCS
areas offshore California that are substantially
equivalent to those applied onshore.
Discussion -- Although the real impact of any emissions
from offshore drilling or production platforms and the
vessels and helicopters that serve them may be
negligible, it is perceived as a substantial problem.
The perception is exacerbated by the fact that air
pollution is the single most dramatic environmental
problem in southern California and that the standards for
offshore activities are not subject to EPA control but to
MMS oversight and have not always been consistent. The
MMS has efforts underway to develop a new proposed
rulemaking to achieve this objective.
B.
Commercial Fishing. In Northern California, reevaluate
the effects of OCS activities on the commercial fishing
industry and institute measures to reduce conflicts
between the petroleum and fishing industries.
Discussion -- The potential conflicts posed to the
commercial fishing industry in northern California were
repeatedly cited. This is a particular problem in that
region because of the heavy reliance of local economies
on fishing, the limited existing infrastructure for which
the commercial fishing and petroleum industries would
compete, and the relatively small population base which
could be severely impacted by employment dislocations
resulting from changes in commercial activity.
C.
Oil Spill Contingency Planning and Response Capabilities.
Steps should be taken to protect coastal and marine
resources more adequately through the following:
1.
Develop improved means of assessing the risks of oil
spills;
2.
Revise requirements for OCS oil spill contingency
response plans to improve effectiveness
(particularly for the Everglades and Keys
ecosystems), including requiring more analysis of
response effectiveness as part of the pre-lease
evaluative process and setting mandatory response
times and minimum standards for equipment and
technology to respond to spills;
3.
Prepare special oil spill contingency response plans
for protected lands, ensuring full coordination
among the MMS, the Coast Guard, the petroleum
industry, and state and local governments;
4.
Revise regional guidelines for oil spill responses
and increase the frequency of oil spill response
drills, involving both government and industry; and
5.
Where feasible and environmentally preferable,
require that oil produced on the OCS be transported
by pipeline rather than ship.
Discussion -- The unique aspects of the Everglades and
the Florida Keys, including the only tropical coral reef
in the continental U.S., justify revisions in planning
and response capabilities for that area. Additional
attention should also be given to northern California due
to its extremely narrow continental shelf and normal
high-sea conditions, which would make oil spills
difficult to contain with currently available technology
and likely to reach environmentally-sensitive areas to
the south, such as Redwoods National Park or Point Reyes.
D.
Tanker Traffic. Direct Coast Guard to study feasibility
of moving tanker routes away from sensitive areas.
Discussion -- The recent California oil spill shows the
need to study tanker routes to see if travel further
offshore and away from sensitive areas is feasible.
E.
Protected Lands and Species. Defer particularly
sensitive protected lands from development or establish
requirements to ensure the maximum practicable protection
and mitigation of impacts. In addition, provide greater
management attention to avoiding conflicts between OCS
activities and protected species.
Discussion -- Given that certain lands have already been
considered so unique as to warrant protection by the
federal government, consideration of setting aside those
lands from development is not a radical additional step.
At the very least, special requirements to preserve those
lands or mitigate any possible impacts from OCS
activities is consistent with the assessment of their
protected character. Similarly, preserving rare or
endangered species through special attention from the
managers of the OCS program appears reasonable and not
unduly burdensome.
F.
Water Quality. The MMS should initiate research into the
long-term effects of OCS activity on the marine
environment and water quality, particularly such
practices as the chronic discharge of drilling fluids.
In sensitive environments, special mitigation programs to
reduce potential adverse effects should be considered.
Discussion -- Given the scarcity of data on the long-
term effects of OCS activities, further study is
justified. Because the potential effects of such
practices as chronic discharges of drilling fluids are
currently unknown, special protection of those marine
environments that are identifiable as sensitive through
mitigation measures is reasonable until better data
become available.
G.
Adverse Socioeconomic Effects. The MMS should note local
concerns and ordinances relating to the siting of onshore
facilities stemming from OCS activities in stipulating
the conditions for lease development, such as considering
a requirement for the consolidation of onshore
facilities. In addition, the MMS and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should play a
greater mediative role between industry and local
governments to mitigate the adverse effects of this
increased onshore development.
Discussion -- The significant impact of OCS activities
on onshore development and the economic and social lives
of local residents should not be underestimated. This is
exacerbated by the general feeling of local residents
that they have little voice in the decision-making
process. Greater sensitivity to local concerns and
existing priorities for development and its control could
be accomplished at very little cost to the federal
government through increased attention to such matters by
the MMS. Such actions as requiring consolidated onshore
facilities could have positive effects on land use
conflicts and infrastructure demands. At the very least,
federal agencies should play the role of "broker" to
mediate between the competing interests of industry and
local communities.
H. Restructuring of OCS Program. Direct the
Secretary of the Interior to begin a study that would
lead to proposals for amendments to the OCS Lands Act in
order to restructure the revenue-sharing and decision-
making provisions of the legislation so that state and
local governments will have a greater voice in the OCS
program.
Discussion -- The lack of financial benefits to the
people most affected by OCS activities and the limited
participatory role in the actual decision-making process
for OCS development have been noted as at least partial
sources of the controversies currently surrounding these
sales and the entire program. Tasking Secretary Lujan to
study these issues with a goal of amending the underlying
legislation could have a positive impact on these sales,
lessening some of the furor. It would more conceivably
be a method to address concerns expressed by Congressmen
and others from areas in which OCS development is
favorably viewed on the whole but where additional
incentives may be needed to avoid repetitions of current
problems. It also is the logical and fair approach to
balancing more equitably federal and local interests.
The nature and extent of authority given to state and
local governments will need to be carefully considered,
however, with the goal being to maintain the OCS program
as a federal authority.
April 30, 1990
SUMMARY OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OCS PROPOSAL
The Interior Department has developed a comprehensive proposal
for the President's upcoming decisions on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) program. The proposal encompasses not only
recommendations regarding the three delayed lease sales, but also
recommendations on other pending sales, an Administration
initiative to identify and protect unique marine environments,
general principles to govern the OCS program in the future, a
review of the statutory and regulatory foundation of the OCS
program, and additional studies to be conducted by the Interior
Department.
California and Florida Lease Sales
California -- All sales currently scheduled offshore California
2000
would be cancelled and 99 percent of the tracts off southern and
northern California would be excluded from consideration for the
1992-1997 five-year program. Only one limited sale of tracts
having high resource potential, where drilling can be done in an
environmentally sound manner, would be pursued in the next
program. No sales would occur off central California until after
1997.
Florida -- Sale 116 off southwestern Florida would be cancelled
or
and the area excluded from future sales until 2000 or later. The
BUY BACK
$
Interior Secretary would work with parties that currently own
112
100
MIC
LEASES
leases off Florida to encourage them to agree voluntarily not to
PROblem.
NEGOT ATE
pursue exploratory drilling for at least three years.
Other Pending Sales
Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary -- The marine sanctuary proposed
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which
encompasses much of the area to be covered by proposed Sale 119,
would be approved, including prohibitions on oil and gas drilling
within the sanctuary.
Washington and Oregon -- The recommendations of the Pacific
Northwest Task Force to defer a proposed lease sale off those two
states until additional environmental studies can be conducted
would be accepted. These studies are anticipated to take seven
to eight years, effectively precluding any sale until the 1997-
2002 five-year program at the earliest.
North Atlantic -- Sale 96 off the North Atlantic coast would be
cancelled and additional studies, including studies designed to
determine the area's resource potential, would be conducted.
Ocean Preserves Register
Recognizing the unique nature of certain marine resources,
Interior would institute an Ocean Preserves Register delineating
offshore areas that would not be leased in the 1992-1997 five-
year program. Five areas off California would initially be
designated for this register: the areas offshore Crescent City
and Mendocino in northern California, the Big Sur coast offshore
central California, and the areas offshore La Jolla and Begg Rock
Island in southern California. Three areas off the southwestern
and southeastern coasts of Florida would be so designated: the
Florida Bay and coral reefs, Cape Sable and the Dry Tortugas.
The boundaries of these areas would be determined within one year
by the Interior Secretary; the preserves would be designated for
the next five-year program only, although as a practical matter
it would be extremely difficult to delete an area from the
register once it has been designated. The Interior Secretary
would confer with coastal governors regarding the inclusion of
additional areas in the register for the 1997-2002 five-year
program.
Principles for OCS Program
The President's decision on the California and Florida sales
would be placed in the context of guiding principles for the OCS
program as it goes forward. Those principles would acknowledge
the importance of domestic energy production for the nation's
economy and national security; require that future OCS decisions
be made on the basis of the best possible information on resource
potential and environmental consequences; and urge that due
consideration of all parties' views be given in carefully making
future OCS decisions.
Restructuring of OCS Program
The Interior Secretary would be charged with reviewing the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act and its implementing regulations to
suggest improvements in the program. One area of specific study
would be an initiative to share directly with impacted coastal
areas the financial benefits of new OCS development.
Additional Studies
To ensure that the best possible information is available for
making future OCS decisions, an additional $250 to $300 million
would be requested to fund a five-year program of studies on the
environmental consequences of offshore drilling, resource
potential of the OCS, oil spill clean-up technology and oil and
gas production technology.
OCS TASK FORCE
Timing of Sales Options and 5-Year Program Development
Sale 116, Part II
Sale 91
Option C
Options A-1, A-2, B
2002
Sale 95
Task Force
Sale 91
Options A-1, A-2, B
Report
Option C
to President
Sale 116, Part II
Sale 95
Option A
Option C
Sale 116, Part II
Option B
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1987-1992 5YP
1992-1997 5YP
1997-2002 5YP
Formulation of
Formulation of
1992-1997 5YP
1997-2002 5YP
I
Sale 119 (C. Cal)*
Sale 128 (N. Cal)*
Sale 138 (S. Cal)*
Preparation for
Follow-on Sales
* Sale Date According to Pre-Congressional Moratoria Schedule
Andy Card
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR
GOVERNOR DAVID BATES SUNUNU
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Meeting on Outer Continental Shelf Decisions
A meeting will be held Tuesday morning, May 1, at 11:00 a.m. in
your office to discuss the decisions that must be made by the
President with respect to the report of his Outer Continental
Shelf Task Force and a new proposal that has been forwarded to
the President by Secretary Lujan. A paper outlining the options
developed by the Task Force and other options developed by White
House staff and the Department of Energy, which includes a four-
page executive summary, is attached at Tab A. A summary of the
Interior Department proposal is attached at Tab B.
SUMMARY
The final report of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing and
Development Task Force was delivered to the White House on
January 5. The report is the work of the Cabinet-level Task
Force, comprised of Secretaries Lujan (who served as chairman)
and Watkins, Administrators Reilly and Knauss and Director
Darman, announced by you in your budget message to Congress in
February 1989. In that budget message you charged the Task Force
to study and resolve environmental concerns regarding the
potential adverse effects of three OCS lease sales scheduled for
FY 1990 that were delayed: Sale 116 off the southwestern coast
of Florida; Sale 95 off southern California; and Sale 91 off
northern California.
In developing options for your consideration, the Task Force
examined the issues of air quality, the risks of oil spills,
changes in onshore infrastructure and land use due to these lease
sales, and the impacts of these sales on protected lands and
species and other wildlife, commercial fishing, water quality,
and tourism and recreation. The Task Force commissioned an
analysis of the adequacy of scientific and technical information
available for making leasing decisions in the three areas from
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report concluded
that there was a lack of some oceanographic, ecological or
socioeconomic data for each area, although the study is subject
to some criticism for calling for an unreasonable level of data.
In its eight-month process the Task Force solicited extensive
input from the public and members of Congress. The public and
most elected officials in the two states are generally opposed to
the sales. The Task Force also uncovered wide dissatisfaction
with the OCS program, as local residents who are most affected by
OCS activities often do not receive commensurate financial
benefits and feel they have little opportunity for participation
in decision-making.
The Task Force presented specific options for decisions on each
sale (four options for the Florida sale and three for each
California sale). The Task Force made no recommendations among
the various options. Additional options have been developed by
White House staff and members of the Task Force independently.
The Task Force also presented, and staff has developed, general
options to be addressed in connection with these three sales and
the overall OCS program.
Decisions are also currently pending on Sale 119 in the San
Francisco-Monterey area of central California and the creation of
a national marine sanctuary in Monterey Bay, which as proposed by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would
cover the most valuable part of the Sale 119 area; NOAA's
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
11a. Paper
By OCS Leasing and Development Task Force
4/30/90
Options Section redacted (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Open on Expiration of PRA
Subseries:
Issues Files
(Document Follows)
WHORM Cat.:
By
H
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
P.RM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
proposal would also ban all oil and gas activities within the
sanctuary. Given the proximity of these areas to the two delayed
California sales and the commonality of the issues, it is
appropriate to make these decisions at the same time as decisions
on the lease sales are made. Four options have been developed by
White House staff calling for combined actions on Sale 119 and
the Monterey Bay sanctuary.
Set forth below are summaries of the options developed by the
Task Force and the White House staff. A full presentation of
those options, and supporting discussion of the respective pros
and cons, is found in the accompanying decision memorandum. The
decision memorandum also provides more extensive information
regarding the Task Force deliberations.
Task Force Options for Sales
Option A
Florida -- Cancel sale and defer leasing decision until
additional oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic data
identified by NAS have been collected.
As for existing leases in same area, proceed with exploration and
development decisions under normal procedures.
California
A-1 -- Proceed with preparations for lease sales but defer
leasing decisions until the additional oceanographic (southern
California) and socioeconomic (southern and northern California)
data identified by NAS have been collected.
A-2 -- Cancel sales and defer subsequent leasing decisions
until additional oceanographic (southern California) and
socioeconomic data (southern and northern California) identified
by NAS have been collected.
Option B
Florida -- Cancel sale and exclude area from consideration for
the 1992-1997 OCS five-year leasing program.
As for existing leases, begin discussions with Florida and
existing lessees to facilitate state purchase of leases.
California -- Defer leasing decisions on both sales until 1992-
1997 five-year program and, if sales go forward, offer tracts
only in limited geographic areas (Santa Maria and Outer San Diego
Basins off southern California and Eel River Basin off northern
California).
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
11b. Paper
By OCS Leasing and Development Task Force
4/30/90
P-5
Options Section redacted (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
By
Subseries:
OP
(NLGB) on 5/12/05
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
Option C
Florida -- Cancel sale and exclude area from consideration for
both 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs.
As for existing leases, begin discussions with Florida regarding
its purchase of leases and initiate procedures that could lead to
cancellation of existing leases under OCS Lands Act.
California -- Cancel sales and exclude areas from consideration
for 1992-1997 five-year program.
Options for Sales Not Identified by Task Force
A. Proceed with sales in Florida and California under existing
OCS Lands Act process.
B. Cancel sales in Florida and California and exclude from
consideration for 1992-1997 program at this time; if additional
studies to obtain data identified by NAS show leasing possible in
environmentally sensitive manner, add tracts to 1992-1997
program.
C. Delay decisions until final National Energy Strategy
submitted in December.
D. Cancel sales and impose permanent ban on lease sales in
three areas.
Other Actions Recommended by Task Force (to Address Environmental
Concerns in Areas of Sales)
A. In southern and northern California, establish air quality
controls for OCS activities that are substantially equivalent to
those applied onshore. The Minerals Management Service already
has efforts underway to develop a new proposed rulemaking to
achieve this objective.
B. In northern California, evaluate the effects of OCS
activities on commercial fisheries and institute measures to
reduce conflicts.
C. In both Florida and California, revise requirements for OCS
oil spill contingency plans to improve their effectiveness and
develop improved means of assessing the risk of damage from oil
spills
D. Institute a Coast Guard study of the feasibility of moving
tanker routes away from sensitive areas.
E. Direct the Secretary of the Interior to study restructuring
of revenue-sharing and decision-making provisions of OCS Lands
Act and OCS program.
Options for Sale 119 and Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary
A. Cancel Sale 119 and adopt NOAA proposal for sanctuary,
including prohibition on oil and gas activities.
B. Adopt NOAA proposal for sanctuary and proceed with Sale 119
only in areas outside sanctuary.
C. Limit sanctuary to smaller size, prohibiting oil and gas
activities within it, and proceed with Sale 119.
D. Adopt NOAA proposal for size of sanctuary, but allow oil and
gas activities within it subject to regulation, and proceed with
Sale 119.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
12. Paper
Options presented by the OCS Leasing and Development
4/30/90
P-5
Task Force (13 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
BVH (NLGB) on 5/12/05
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
April 30, 1990
I. ISSUE
A decision on the options presented by the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing and Development Task
Force is needed.
II. BACKGROUND
In your February 9, 1989 budget message to Congress,
honoring a pledge made during the campaign, you imposed a
moratorium on three controversial OCS lease sales
scheduled for fiscal year 1990 -- Sale 116 in the Gulf of
Mexico off the southwestern coast of Florida, Sale 95 off
the coast of southern California, and Sale 91 off the
coast of northern California -- pending a review of the
environmental effects of the sales by a Cabinet-level
task force. The California sales had been subject to
Congressionally-imposed moratoria in 1987, 1988 and 1989
and the Florida sale became subject to a Congressionally-
imposed moratorium last year.
The Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) were named as members of the Task Force and
charged with making recommendations on the future of the
lease sales within one year.
In fulfilling its charge, the Task Force conducted
briefings and public workshops in Florida and California,
hearing from over 1,000 witnesses, met with Members of
Congress from those two states and other parts of the
country, and received over 11,000 written comments. It
also commissioned and received a study from the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) addressing the adequacy of the
scientific and technical data available on which
decisions on the three lease sales could be made.
The Task Force delivered its report to the White House on
January 5.
III. DISCUSSION
A. POLICY GOALS
The OCS leasing program is governed by the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act and overseen by the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) within the Interior Department.
(A description of the program is found at Appendix A.)
The program has been the focus of controversy in recent
years over the environmental effects of offshore oil and
2
gas exploration and development. The controversy has
resulted in yearly Congressional moratoria on certain
lease sales, pre-lease planning activities, and even some
post-lease exploration. The policy goal of the decisions
on these three lease sales, which will inevitably affect
the entire OCS program, must be to reconcile the need for
adequate domestic energy supplies through robust
exploration and development on the OCS and the need for
long-term protection of sensitive environments and
ecosystems. An additional goal must be to regain
Executive branch control of the OCS program by addressing
Congressional and local concerns and removing their
stranglehold on the program.
B. RESOURCE POTENTIAL
The decisions with respect to these three lease sales
must take into account their relationship to the total
oil and gas resources of the U.S. The MMS has developed
mean estimates for the undiscovered economically
recoverable (using existing technology) oil and gas
resources derivable from (1) the U.S. as a whole,
including the OCS, (2) the entire OCS, (3) the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (ANWR), (4) the
existing leases in the three planning areas in which
these sales are located and (5) the leases involved in
the sales. Appendix B is a table setting forth the
relative oil and gas resources available from all of
these areas. As you can see, the three sales represent
about 1.6 percent of all U.S. oil resources and about 0.4
percent of all U.S. gas resources, equivalent to about
one-sixth of the resources available from ANWR.
It should be noted that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has already eliminated any projected
revenues from these three sales from its budget
projections. The decisions on the sales therefore have
no immediate impact on, and should not be considered as
an issue relevant to, the budget.
C. RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO OCS
PROGRAM
The relationship of state and local governments and their
constituents to the OCS program is also a relevant issue.
The federal government's perspective on the OCS program
is premised on its role in the nation's overall energy
strategy, with its national security and economic
implications. In administering the OCS program the
federal government also exercises its national
stewardship functions to manage and protect scarce and
valuable environmental resources on public lands.
3
State and local governments, on the other hand, represent
more parochial interests of the people who will
experience the direct impact of OCS development. Most of
the financial benefit of OCS leasing and development
accrues to the federal government (states receive 100
percent of revenues from OCS leases within the first
three miles of shore, 27 percent of revenues from OCS
leases three to twelve miles from shore, and nothing from
leases further than twelve miles offshore). Further, the
residents of the localities most directly affected by OCS
activity may or may not benefit proportionately from the
revenues received by the state if those revenues are
spent elsewhere. Despite the opportunities granted for
participation in the OCS process, persons affected by
federal OCS decisions often feel that their interests
have not been represented; this likely accounts for the
contentious nature of many recent OCS decisions.
Although not a subject directly addressed by the Task
Force, the concept of restructuring the OCS program to
give states a greater share of the revenues arose during
your January meeting with the members of the Task Force.
Many members of the Administration believe, however, that
this type of local revenue-sharing will not be enough to
engender support by Atlantic and Pacific coastal states
and localities for the OCS program.
D. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) STUDY
The Task Force asked the NAS to study the adequacy of the
scientific and technical data available on which
decisions for the three lease sales could be made. The
NAS report concluded that generally there are not
adequate oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic data
on which to base a lease/no lease decision, but that the
adequacy varies by lease sale. The NAS conclusions are
as follows:
Sale
Oceanographic Ecological
Socioeconomic
Florida
marginal
inadequate
inadequate
N. Cal.
adequate
adequate
inadequate
S. Cal.
inadequate
adequate
doubtful
The NAS recommended that no decision be made on
proceeding with the lease sales until further studies are
conducted, although it did not specifically identify
those studies that must be conducted in order to have a
complete data base. There is no clear consensus as to
the length of time needed to conduct adequate studies.
Staff of the Task Force estimates that it could take as
long as five to six years in Florida and as little as two
to three years in northern California.
4
Questions regarding the value of the NAS study and the
weight it should be accorded have been raised. Some
allege that the strictest academic "peer review" standard
was used to assess the available data, which would be far
greater than the standard generally used in making
governmental decisions. Such a standard could be seen as
unreasonable in a real world context, imposing a burden
that could rarely if ever be sustained, particularly when
weighed against the costs necessary to meet such a
standard and the benefits of the OCS program.
The NAS was also requested to study the adequacy of
resource estimate methodology used by the MMS. The NAS
report concluded that the MMS methodology for developing
resource estimates is adequate and sound.
E. LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
As noted in Section II above, in preparing the report the
Task Force conducted local meetings in Florida and
California. These were designed to give the Task Force
the opportunity to discuss the proposed sales with state
and local officials, scientists, business leaders and
other interested groups and with members of the general
public. Demonstrations in opposition to leasing were
held at each of the nine public workshops. In addition,
the vast majority of persons who spoke at the meetings
were adamant in their opposition to new leasing. Local
opposition to leasing does not appear to have lessened,
and in fact may have strengthened. An August California
Poll found that 75 percent of those surveyed opposed more
drilling off the coast, the highest level of opposition
yet expressed in a statewide poll.
State and local officials are also generally unanimously
opposed to the sales. In Florida, the entire
Congressional delegation, Governor Martinez and all local
elected officials oppose new leasing, and in fact also
oppose exploration on existing leases off southwestern
Florida. Both California Senators oppose new leasing, as
do virtually all local elected officials. The California
Congressional delegation is split on the issue, although
almost all affected coastal representatives oppose new
leasing. Governor Deukmajian is generally supportive of
further offshore development.
F. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
In analyzing the three lease sales, the Task Force
identified and addressed six specific environmental
concerns: (1) air quality; (2) the risks of oil spills;
(3) the impact of OCS activity on commercial fishing;
5
(4) the effects of OCS activity on protected lands and
species; (5) water quality; and (6) socioeconomic
impacts. The general findings of the Task Force with
respect to these six areas and the cumulative effects are
found at Appendix C.
G. RELATIONSHIP OF DECISIONS ON SALES TO SALE 119 IN
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA AND CREATION OF MONTEREY BAY SANCTUARY
Closely related to your decision on these three lease
sales are decisions on the future of Sale 119 off central
California and the creation of a national marine
sanctuary in the area around Monterey Bay.
The area to be covered by Sale 119, which is still in its
pre-leasing stages, stretches from San Francisco
southward to the northern tip of Monterey Bay. This
incorporates sensitive areas off the coast of Big Sur,
Carmel and Monterey, resulting in public opposition to
this sale that is at least as strong as that to Sales 95
and 91 and perhaps even stronger. The sale was
originally scheduled for March 1991, but due to the
imposition of a moratorium by Congress and delays in the
pre-sale process, a sale probably could not occur until
the middle of the 1992 fiscal year at the earliest. In
addition, pre-sale analysis would likely reduce the area
to be covered by the sale. OMB has already eliminated
projected revenues from this sale from its FY 1991 budget
projections and has also eliminated revenues from a FY
1994 lease sale in central California. Appendix B shows
the oil and gas resources available from Sale 119. As
you can see, such oil and gas resources are less than
those available from Sales 95 and 91 and slightly more
than those available from Sale 116.
The creation of a national marine sanctuary in the
Monterey Bay area was mandated by Congress in 1988.
Fulfilling its responsibility under the legislation, NOAA
has proposed designating an area for the sanctuary
covering approximately 2,200 square miles, about a third
of which is within the area to be covered by Sale 119,
including more than two-thirds of the most promising
tracts. NOAA has also proposed regulations that prohibit
all oil, gas and mineral exploration and development
activities within the proposed sanctuary. Other
activities are limited but not proscribed. A ban on oil
and gas activities is not mandatory within a marine
sanctuary; in fact, sanctuaries in other parts of the
country are not subject to this prohibition, although
because of the sensitivity of the issue in California
other sanctuaries off its shores do bear such bans
6
(including one ban that was Congressionally imposed in
1989).
IV. OPTIONS
A.
Decisions on Lease Sales
The Task Force presented eleven separate options for the
lease sales, three for the Florida sale and four for each
California sale. White House staff and the individual
departments represented on the Task Force have also
identified other options, including those at the extreme
ends of the spectrum. All of the options for the lease
sales are set forth below (Task Force options first,
followed by options developed by staff) and accompanied
by supporting discussion of their pros and cons. It
should be noted that the members of the Task Force agreed
only to include within their final report options that
all members could agree would be acceptable, so some of
the new options that have been developed may have been
considered by the Task Force and may be supported by
individual members.
Task Force Options for Sales
Option A
Sale 116 (Florida)
Cancel the sale and defer subsequent decision until the
additional oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic
data identified by the NAS have been collected.
As for existing leases, proceed with exploration and
development decisions under normal procedures.
Sales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern
California)
The same language is included for Option A for both
California sales. A separate decision is needed for each
sale, however.
A-1 -- Proceed with preparations for the lease sales
but defer final decisions until the additional
oceanographic (southern California) and socioeconomic
(southern and northern California) data identified by the
NAS have been collected.
A-2 -- Cancel the sales and defer subsequent decisions
until the additional oceanographic (southern California)
7
and socioeconomic data (southern and northern California)
identified by the NAS have been collected.
Discussion -- Under these options, leasing in both
Florida and California could occur as part of the 1992-
1997 five-year plan, which was to be proposed by
Secretary Lujan in March but which is being delayed
pending your decision on these sales. These are pro-
petroleum industry options that signal the
Administration's continued commitment to OCS development
and affirm to the greatest extent the Interior
Secretary's discretion over OCS decisions, consistent
with current law. They recognize that the OCS is a
national resource the development of which will not be
unduly subject to local citizens' views. They will
likely meet with strong criticism, however, particularly
on the ground that a decision to cancel the sales of the
leases, followed almost immediately by the inclusion of
the same leases in the next five-year program, smacks of
hypocrisy. This criticism can be partially rebutted by
responding to the environmental concerns identified by
the NAS and imposing additional environmental
restrictions on new leases.
Allowing exploration and development to proceed on the
Florida leases using normal procedures avoids any
interference with current lessees and any "takings"
problems that could arise.
Option B
Sale 116 (Florida)
Cancel the sale and exclude the area from consideration
for the 1992-1997 five-year program.
As for existing leases, proceed with exploration and
development decisions under normal procedures but begin
discussions with the state and existing lessees regarding
the state's purchase of the leases.
Sales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern
California)
In southern California (Sale 95), defer a decision on the
sale until the 1992-1997 five-year program, conducting
additional oceanographic and socioeconomic studies; if
the sale goes forward, offer tracts only in the Santa
Maria and San Diego Outer Basins.
In northern California, also defer a decision until the
1992-97 five-year program, conducting additional
8
socioeconomic studies; if the sale goes forward, offer
tracts only in the Eel River Basin.
Discussion -- These are compromise options. Leasing
could occur off California after 1992 (which, given
current Congressional moratoria and the time required to
complete the studies arising from the NAS report, may be
as soon as leasing could occur in any event), but would
be restricted to areas where development would be less
intrusive and to smaller areas so that environmentally-
sensitive features such as the Channel Islands National
Park and Marine Sanctuary could be protected. Leasing
off Florida would be delayed for at least seven years
until 1997. The petroleum industry should find this an
acceptable option, as it does not preclude development.
There is less certainty that the environmental community
will accept it as a reasonable compromise. The delays
should, however, allow the Interior Department to
complete the studies identified by the NAS, and this can
be used to rebut environmental concerns.
Beginning discussions with Florida regarding its purchase
of the existing leases imposes some burden on it to
protect its tourist industry and natural resources, which
is reasonable given that the state has also allowed
development in this area. This could open the door to
moves by the environmental community to cancel the
leases, however.
Option C
Sale 116 (Florida)
Cancel the sale and exclude the area from consideration
for both the 1992-1997 and 1997-2002 five-year programs.
As for existing leases, begin discussions with the state
and existing lessees regarding the state's purchase of
the leases and have Interior initiate procedures that
could lead to cancellation of the existing leases (which
would suspend further exploration or development).
Sales 95 (Southern California) and 91 (Northern
California)
Similar language is included for Option C for both
California sales. A separate decision is needed for each
sale, however.
Cancel the sales (and the next scheduled sales in both
areas) and exclude the areas from consideration for the
1992-1997 five-year program.
9
Discussion -- These are the most pro-environmental
options identified by the Task Force, precluding lease
sales off Florida until at least 2002 and off California
until at least 1997. They do not constitute the
permanent ban on leasing in the three areas that
environmentalists and most local residents seek, however.
These options could alleviate pressures in Congress for
the creation of ocean sanctuaries or permanent bans on
leasing.
The move to cancel the existing leases off Florida would
be particularly welcomed by environmentalists and would
respond to one of the criticisms of the NAS, namely that
leasing always leads to future development without any
subsequent analysis of environmental impacts. There are
questions about the ability of the Interior Department to
cancel the leases under current law, however, which
requires a finding of existing environmental harm.
These options are also the ones on which the FY 1991
budget is based, including provision in the budget for
repurchase in FY 1995 of the existing leases off Florida,
valued at the lesser of the fair market value of the
leases or the amount of lease bonuses paid plus
investment to date (approximately $200 million), so no
adverse budgetary impact would result if this course were
chosen.
Options Not Identified by Task Force
A. Proceed with lease sales under existing OCS Lands Act
process. Pre-lease activities would be reactivated at
the point at which they were stopped by the Presidential
moratorium.
Discussion -- This is one of the two extreme options.
It would essentially reject both the NAS study and the
report of the Task Force and proceed with "business as
usual. It could be perceived as a complete sell-out to
the petroleum industry and would likely be severely
criticized by the environmental community and probably by
the general public, particularly in the two affected
states.
B. Cancel the sales, excluding them at this time from
the 1992-1997 five-year program, and directing that
future decisions on lease sales in these areas will be
made only after the data identified as deficient by the
NAS have been identified and collected; if the studies
subsequently show that leasing can be done in an
environmentally acceptable manner, add the tracts to the
1992-1997 five-year program.
10
Discussion -- This is a new option proposed by the
Energy Department. It allows decisive action on the
sales and the OCS program as a whole; it also
acknowledges that a more objective and scientific basis
is needed for decision-making. It avoids an arbitrary
decision to defer leasing or delete tracts from
consideration for leasing by holding the door open for
later inclusion of the leases in the 1992-1997 five-year
program; as such, it could thwart the efforts of those
who would use a cancellation decision as the precedent
for seeking further arbitrary bans on OCS activities
elsewhere. It would require an amendment to the 1992-97
five-year program at some point, which could focus
Congressional and environmental opposition to leasing.
C. Delay any decision on the sales until the National
Energy Strategy (NES) is finalized and submitted in
December 1990; concurrently with the announcement of that
course of action, make the OCS Task Force report public.
Discussion -- This option alleviates the difficulties
posed by making these decisions in the vacuum created
without knowing how they and the future of the OCS
program relate to the NES. It also sends a signal that
the President intends to balance environmental concerns
with energy security and economic requirements. The
petroleum industry may be disconcerted by the perceived
signal that further development is being significantly
slowed, although the strong link to the NES should offset
industry uneasiness. Delaying the sales also adversely
affects the time before which these resources can be
tapped (assuming that some development goes forward).
This option also delays any guidance to the Interior
Department and the MMS for their development of the next
five-year plan and other pending decisions regarding the
OCS. The release of the report will remove some of the
mystery surrounding the decisions, allow the public to
engage in the dialogue and focus attention on the
necessity for further scientific (by collection of the
data identified by the NAS) and economic (by the NES)
analysis of the decisions and the overall domestic energy
situation. The delay in the decision and release of the
report would likely be opposed by the California and
Florida Congressional delegations (especially Senator
Wilson), who want a decision to be made soon.
D. Cancel the sales and impose a permanent ban on lease
sales in the three areas.
Discussion -- This option recognizes the political
reality that no drilling is likely to occur on these
leases in the foreseeable future, given the clear
11
disposition of the Congress on this matter. OMB has
already eliminated any projections of revenue from these
sales from its budget receipt projections. Implementing
this option could remove the sizeable California and
Florida Congressional delegations from the nationwide
coalition that threatens to jeopardize the entire OCS
program or at least block some future activities. It
could, however, also be used as "evidence" by those
seeking permanent bans on all offshore drilling
activities, even on existing leases, that no OCS
activities are environmentally prudent.
B. Decisions on Other Actions Recommended to Address
Environmental Concerns in Areas of Sales and Deficiencies
in OCS Program.
The Task Force also developed recommended options for
addressing various environmental concerns that arise in
the three sale areas (and to a lesser extent throughout
the entire OCS). These options relate to (1) air quality
standards offshore California, (2) conflicts with
commercial fishing, particularly in northern California,
(3) oil spill contingency planning and response
capabilities, (4) tanker traffic, (5) safeguards for
protected lands and species, (6) protection of water
quality, and (7) steps to alleviate adverse socioeconomic
effects of OCS activities. In addition, your staff
developed an option for study of increased state and
local participation in the OCS program. This concept,
including the notion of increased sharing of revenues
from the OCS with local communities impacted by OCS
activities, has been discussed publicly by Secretary
Lujan and other Interior officials publicly in recent
days. All of these options are set forth in Appendix D.
C. Decisions on Sale 119 and Monterey Bay Sanctuary
Because of the reasonable proximity of the Sale 119 area,
including the Monterey Bay area, to the Sale 95 and 91
areas, and because of the common issues surrounding oil
and gas activities in all three areas, decisions on the
future of Sale 119 and the size and scope of activities
within the new Monterey Bay Sanctuary should also be made
at this time.
A. Cancel Sale 119 and proceed with the pending NOAA
proposal establishing the size of, and the prohibitions
on oil and gas activities within, the sanctuary.
Discussion -- NOAA asserts that the entire proposed
sanctuary area is nationally significant and
environmentally sensitive. For example, excluding any of
12
the proposed lease sale area would exclude the largest
breeding ground for marine mammals in the lower 48
states, a biologically irreplaceable resource.
Cancelling the sale would also acknowledge the strength
of the public opposition to oil and gas activities off
this portion of central California. NOAA further argues
that, if prohibitions on oil and gas activities are not
imposed through regulations, a more restrictive
legislative ban will likely be enacted, as occurred last
spring with the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
off San Francisco. The impact of such a decision where
there has not been the extensive analysis of available
scientific data that accompanied the Task Force report
must be assessed, however, as must the possibility that
this could bolster arguments for a permanent ban on oil
and gas activities off California and even Washington and
Oregon.
B. Proceed with the NOAA proposal for the sanctuary,
including the prohibitions on oil and gas activities, and
proceed with Sale 119 only in areas outside the
sanctuary.
Discussion -- The proposed sanctuary boundaries were
drawn to provide a buffer to protect the area's sensitive
resources. Therefore, oil and gas activities could
proceed outside the sanctuary without causing, from
NOAA's viewpoint, any undue risk. This option
acknowledges that selected coastal areas are unique and
therefore require that special measures be implemented to
proetect them. At the same time it recognizes that oil
and gas activities can proceed in an environmentally safe
manner near sensitive areas.
C. Limit the sanctuary to a smaller size recommended by
the Department of the Interior, prohibiting oil and gas
activity in this reduced area, and proceed with Sale 119.
Discussion -- The Interior Department proposal for the
sanctuary is approximately 60 percent smaller than the
NOAA proposal and preserves the tracts with the greatest
resource potential. Interior argues that it adequately
protects valuable marine resources without unduly
hindering development, but recognizes that certain areas
are so unique that no oil and gas activity within them is
appropriate. NOAA argues that it would exclude some of
the most biologically significant areas and expose the
Administration to charges that the sanctuary boundaries
were gerrymandered to permit oil and gas activities.
D. Proceed with Sale 119 and the NOAA proposal for the
size of the sanctuary; do not prohibit oil and gas
13
activity within the sanctuary but only subject it to
regulation like other activities.
Discussion -- This position provides protections to the
entire area NOAA has identified as sensitive, but
emphasizes the view that oil and gas activity can occur
coincident with sound environmental protection. It is
likely to result, however, in a legislative ban on oil
and gas activities. If not, the current debate on oil
and gas drilling would be taken up again during NOAA's
rulemaking process to implement allowable oil and gas
activities in the sanctuary.
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF OCS PROGRAM
The OCS leasing program is governed by the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act and overseen by the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) within the Interior Department. The sale and
development of leases under the Act is accomplished in five-
year programs, which begin with thorough analyses to assess
the potential reserves derivable from leases and any problems
that would accompany their development. That process starts
more than two years before the beginning date of a five-year
program. The MMS undertakes twelve separate steps as part of
this evaluative process, preparing two drafts of the program
and an environmental impact statement (EIS). The public is
given opportunity to comment at three points in the process
and Congress is also formally notified before a program is
finally approved.
Following final approval of a five-year program, typically
another 24 to 26 months are required before any lease sale can
take place. During this period another EIS specific to the
lease sale area is prepared and additional opportunities for
public comment are provided, along with an opportunity for
comment by the governor of the state offshore which the sale
is to occur. Once a sale occurs, exploration of the leases
can take anywhere from 1 to 10 years and development and
production can occur over several decades.
The three lease sales studied by the Task Force are all part
of the 1987-1992 five-year program. The sales were at
different stages when the moratoria were imposed, and could
have been held within five to sixteen months. The initial
steps for the 1992-1997 five-year program were scheduled to
commence in March with Secretary Lujan's release of a proposal
for comment, but that has been delayed pending decisions on
these three lease sales. The program development process is
expected to take until the summer of 1992, with the first sale
tentatively scheduled for September 1992. That schedule is
not mandated by statute or administrative rule or regulation,
however, and could be delayed. A delay of up to six months
would not significantly affect the timing of the program and
the early sales, as only one to two months would be lost.
APPENDIX B
RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Oil
%
Gas
%
(billion of
trillion
of
barrels) Total
cubic ft)
Total
Total U.S. Resources
34.80
263.00
Entire OCS
8.20
23.6
74.00
28.1
ANWR
3.20
9.2
6.90(1)
2.6
Existing Fla. Leases
.14
.4
.30
.1
Existing S. Cal. Leases(2)
.34
1.0
.80
.3
Sale 116
.11
.3
---
Sale 95
.23
.7
.46
.2
Sale 91
.20
.6
.41
.2
Sale 116
.16
.5
.26
.1
(1) Although ANWR is estimated to contain 6.9 trillion cubic
feet of gas, the production of natural gas from ANWR is
considered by some to be uneconomical.
(2) None of the area off northern California has yet been
leased.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
13. Paper
Appendix C: Findings on Environmental Concerns (6 pp.)
4/30/90
P-5
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By
If
(NLGB)
on
5/12/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Outer Continental Shelf (1990) [2]
Date Closed:
12/10/2004
OA/ID Number:
29164-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4-Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
:
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion-of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
APPENDIX c
FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Air Quality. Offshore oil and gas drilling activities produce
the same types of emissions as onshore activities, with the
notable addition of emissions from support vessels and
helicopters. Meteorological conditions may also exist that
consistently drive offshore emissions toward land,
particularly off California. Despite this, the Task Force
found that emissions controls currently imposed by the MMS on
offshore drilling are less stringent than those imposed on
similar activities onshore. The effects of offshore emissions
are of greatest concern in southern California due to the
generally already poor air quality; there are more limited
concerns with respect to northern California also. All of the
Task Force options for California include strengthening
emissions standards. The Senate version of the Clean Air Act
amendments currently contains Administration-supported
language requiring such stricter OCS emissions standards.
Oil Spill Risks. The Task Force found that the risks posed to
coastal and marine resources by oil spills are significant and
that the environmental impact of a major OCS spill would be
severe. It concluded, however, that the increased chances of
a major oil spill caused by OCS drilling activities in the
three areas are small (in the case of Florida and southern
California, only a 1 percent greater risk, and in the case of
northern California an 8 percent greater risk) compared to the
risk of a spill caused by existing activity, such as non-OCS
tanker and barge traffic. The Task Force found that coastal
and marine resources warrant greater protection from possible
oil spills, whatever their source, than is currently provided.
Commercial Fishing. Commercial fishing is a vital economic
activity in all three areas, especially off southern and
northern California. OCS activities pose a variety of
conflicts between the petroleum and fishing industries,
including competition for available space at sea and for port
space onshore. There are also concerns about the loss or
destruction of habitat due to the effects of OCS activities
and the significant risks posed by oil spills. The Task Force
concluded that many of these conflicts can be resolved or
largely mitigated through the recommended use of joint
committees comprised of representatives of the petroleum and
fishing industries in areas where OCS activities are planned.
Protected Lands. Each of these three areas has unique
protected lands, most notably the mangrove-coral reef system
in the Everglades and Florida Keys. The Task Force found that
these sensitive and highly valuable areas now receive only the
same level of protection as that in ordinary areas but that
they warrant additional consideration and heightened
management.
Protected Species. Each of these three areas is inhabited by
species that have been placed under the protection of federal
statutes, most notably the endangered manatees off Florida.
The Task Force concluded that existing protections are
sufficient to protect these species so that a delay in leasing
cannot be justified on this basis alone.
Water Quality. OCS activities can have various impacts on the
water quality near rigs and platforms. Such activity is
currently regulated by EPA under the Clean Water Act through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The Task
Force found that this regulation is adequate in the three
areas. It noted, however (as did the NAS), that information
on the long-term effects of chronic discharges is lacking.
Socioeconomic Impacts. OCS activities, though offshore, have
significant socioeconomic impacts onshore. The Task Force
found that these include the possibility of increased
conflicts over land use and greater demands on infrastructure
that could force changes in the character of an area. Tourism
and recreation can also be adversely affected, although the
Task Force found that this does not appear to be a sufficient
basis for delaying the lease sales. The Task Force concluded
that in these three areas such conflicts can be substantially
reduced through better consultative relationships among the
petroleum industry, government (especially state and local
governments) and other affected parties in planning and
coordinating the onshore activities of OCS lessees.
Cumulative Effects. The Task Force concluded that, although
many of the environmental effects of OCS oil and gas
activities, taken individually, are acceptable, collectively
they could result in unacceptable changes to the local
environments in or near the three sale areas unless new
measures are taken to control or mitigate such effects.
The Task Force recognized the substantial conflict that often
exists between the goals protecting the coastal and marine
environments and maintaining the quality of life in coastal
areas, on the one hand, and the goals of promoting energy
security and economic growth on the other. The Task Force
found no easy way to resolve this conflict. Based on its
review of available information, the Task Force concluded that
additional time and effort are needed before environmental
concerns can be resolved in a manner that provides an
acceptable balance between these conflicting goals.
APPENDIX D
OPTIONS FOR OTHER ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS AND DEFICIENCY IN OCS PROGRAM
A.
Air Quality. Establish air quality controls for the OCS
areas offshore California that are substantially
equivalent to those applied onshore.
Discussion -- Although the real impact of any emissions
from offshore drilling or production platforms and the
vessels and helicopters that serve them may be
negligible, it is perceived as a substantial problem.
The perception is exacerbated by the fact that air
pollution is the single most dramatic environmental
problem in southern California and that the standards for
offshore activities are not subject to EPA control but to
MMS oversight and have not always been consistent. The
MMS has efforts underway to develop a new proposed
rulemaking to achieve this objective.
B.
Commercial Fishing. In Northern California, reevaluate
the effects of OCS activities on the commercial fishing
industry and institute measures to reduce conflicts
between the petroleum and fishing industries.
Discussion -- The potential conflicts posed to the
commercial fishing industry in northern California were
repeatedly cited. This is a particular problem in that
region because of the heavy reliance of local economies
on fishing, the limited existing infrastructure for which
the commercial fishing and petroleum industries would
compete, and the relatively small population base that
could be severely affected by employment dislocations
resulting from changes in commercial activity.
C.
Oil Spill Contingency Planning and Response Capabilities.
Steps should be taken to protect coastal and marine
resources more adequately through the following:
1.
Develop improved means of assessing the risks of oil
spills;
2. Revise requirements for OCS oil spill contingency
response plans to improve effectiveness
(particularly for the Everglades and Keys
ecosystems), including requiring more analysis of
response effectiveness as part of the pre-lease
evaluative process and setting mandatory response
times and minimum standards for equipment and
technology to respond to spills;
3.
Prepare special oil spill contingency response plans
for protected lands, ensuring full coordination
among the MMS, the Coast Guard, the petroleum
industry, and state and local governments;
4.
Revise regional guidelines for oil spill responses
and increase the frequency of oil spill response
drills, involving both government and industry; and
5.
Where feasible and environmentally preferable,
require that oil produced on the OCS be transported
by pipeline rather than ship.
Discussion -- The unique aspects of the Everglades and
the Florida Keys, including the only tropical coral reef
in the continental U.S., justify revisions in planning
and response capabilities for that area. Additional
attention should also be given to northern California due
to its extremely narrow continental shelf and normal
high-sea conditions, which would make oil spills
difficult to contain with currently available technology
and likely to reach environmentally-sensitive areas to
the south, such as Redwoods National Park or Point Reyes.
D.
Tanker Traffic. Direct Coast Guard to study feasibility
of moving tanker routes away from sensitive areas.
Discussion -- The recent California oil spill shows the
need to study tanker routes to see if travel further
offshore and away from sensitive areas is feasible. The
Coast Guard has been at work on a proposal that would
provide for International Maritime Organization action to
move tanker and other major vessel traffic further away
from the coral reefs off Florida.
E.
Protected Lands and Species. Defer particularly
sensitive protected lands from development or establish
requirements to ensure the maximum practicable protection
and mitigation of impacts. In addition, provide greater
management attention to avoiding conflicts between OCS
activities and protected species.
Discussion -- Given that certain lands have already been
considered so unique as to warrant protection by the
federal government (including national parks and marine
sanctuaries), consideration of setting aside those lands
from development is not a radical additional step. At
the very least, special requirements to preserve those
lands or mitigate any possible impacts from OCS
activities is consistent with the assessment of their
protected character. Similarly, preserving rare or
endangered species through special attention from the
managers of the OCS program appears reasonable and not
unduly burdensome.
F.
Water Quality. The MMS should initiate research into the
long-term effects of OCS activity on the marine
environment and water quality, particularly such
practices as the chronic discharge of drilling fluids.
In sensitive environments, special mitigation programs to
reduce potential adverse effects should be considered.
Discussion -- Given the scarcity of data on the long-
term effects of OCS activities, further study is
justified. Because the potential effects of such
practices as chronic discharges of drilling fluids are
currently unknown, special protection of those marine
environments that are identifiable as sensitive through
mitigation measures is reasonable until better data
become available.
G.
Adverse Socioeconomic Effects. The MMS should note local
concerns and ordinances relating to the siting of onshore
facilities stemming from OCS activities in stipulating
the conditions for lease development, such as considering
a requirement for the consolidation of onshore
facilities. In addition, the MMS and NOAA should play a
greater mediative role between industry and local
governments to mitigate the adverse effects of this
increased onshore development.
Discussion -- The significant impact of OCS activities
on onshore development and the economic and social lives
of local residents should not be underestimated. This is
exacerbated by the general feeling of local residents
that they have little voice in the decision-making
process. Greater sensitivity to local concerns and
existing priorities for development and its control could
be accomplished at very little cost to the federal
government through increased attention to such matters by
the MMS. Such actions as requiring consolidated onshore
facilities could have positive effects on land use
conflicts and infrastructure demands. At the very least,
federal agencies should play the role of "broker" to
mediate between the competing interests of industry and
local communities.
H.
Restructuring of OCS Program. Direct the
Secretary of the Interior to begin a study that would
lead to proposals for amendments to the OCS Lands Act in
order to restructure the revenue-sharing and decision-
making provisions of the legislation so that state and
local governments will have a greater voice in the OCS
program.
Discussion -- The lack of financial benefits to the
people most affected by OCS activities and the limited
participatory role in the actual decision-making process
for OCS development have been noted as at least partial
sources of the controversies currently surrounding these
sales and the entire program. Tasking Secretary Lujan to
study these issues with a goal of amending the underlying
legislation could have a positive impact on these sales,
lessening some of the furor. It would more conceivably
be a method to address concerns expressed by Congressmen
and others from areas in which OCS development is
favorably viewed on the whole but where additional
incentives may be needed to avoid repetitions of current
problems. It also is the logical and fair approach to
balancing more equitably federal and local interests.
The nature and extent of authority given to state and
local governments will need to be carefully considered,
however, with the goal being to maintain the OCS program
as a federal authority. Interior Department officials,
including Secretary Lujan, have alluded to increased
federal revenue-sharing with local communities in recent
public remarks. The responses to such overtures have not
been particularly positive, with reaction from some
quarters that such action will not be sufficient to
overcome opposition to OCS activities on other grounds.
The result might be a reduction in federal revenues
without a significant reduction in opposition.
April 30, 1990
SUMMARY OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OCS PROPOSAL
The Interior Department has developed a comprehensive proposal
for the President's upcoming decisions on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) program. The proposal encompasses not only
recommendations regarding the three delayed lease sales, but also
recommendations on other pending sales, an Administration
initiative to identify and protect unique marine environments,
general principles to govern the OCS program in the future, a
review of the statutory and regulatory foundation of the OCS
program, and additional studies to be conducted by the Interior
Department.
California and Florida Lease Sales
California -- All sales currently scheduled offshore California
would be cancelled and 99 percent of the tracts off southern and
northern California would be excluded from consideration for the
1992-1997 five-year program. Only one limited sale of tracts
having high resource potential, where drilling can be done in an
environmentally sound manner, would be pursued in the next
program. No sales would occur off central California until after
1997.
Florida -- Sale 116 off southwestern Florida would be cancelled
and the area excluded from future sales until 2000 or later. The
Interior Secretary would work with parties that currently own
leases off Florida to encourage them to agree voluntarily not to
pursue exploratory drilling for at least three years.
Other Pending Sales
Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary -- The marine sanctuary proposed
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which
encompasses much of the area to be covered by proposed Sale 119,
would be approved, including prohibitions on oil and gas drilling
within the sanctuary.
Washington and Oregon -- The recommendations of the Pacific
Northwest Task Force to defer a proposed lease sale off those two
states until additional environmental studies can be conducted
would be accepted. These studies are anticipated to take seven
to eight years, effectively precluding any sale until the 1997-
2002 five-year program at the earliest.
North Atlantic -- Sale 96 off the North Atlantic coast would be
cancelled and additional studies, including studies designed to
determine the area's resource potential, would be conducted.
Ocean Preserves Register
Recognizing the unique nature of certain marine resources,
Interior would institute an Ocean Preserves Register delineating
offshore areas that would not be leased in the 1992-1997 five-
year program. Five areas off California would initially be
designated for this register: the areas offshore Crescent City
and Mendocino in northern California, the Big Sur coast offshore
central California, and the areas offshore La Jolla and Begg Rock
Island in southern California. Three areas off the southwestern
and southeastern coasts of Florida would be so designated: the
Florida Bay and coral reefs, Cape Sable and the Dry Tortugas.
The boundaries of these areas would be determined within one year
by the Interior Secretary; the preserves would be designated for
the next five-year program only, although as a practical matter
it would be extremely difficult to delete an area from the
register once it has been designated. The Interior Secretary
would confer with coastal governors regarding the inclusion of
additional areas in the register for the 1997-2002 five-year
program.
Principles for OCS Program
The President's decision on the California and Florida sales
would be placed in the context of guiding principles for the OCS
program as it goes forward. Those principles would acknowledge
the importance of domestic energy production for the nation's
economy and national security; require that future OCS decisions
be made on the basis of the best possible information on resource
potential and environmental consequences; and urge that due
consideration of all parties' views be given in carefully making
future OCS decisions.
Restructuring of OCS Program
The Interior Secretary would be charged with reviewing the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act and its implementing regulations to
suggest improvements in the program. One area of specific study
would be an initiative to share directly with impacted coastal
areas the financial benefits of new OCS development.
Additional Studies
To ensure that the best possible information is available for
making future OCS decisions, an additional $250 to $300 million
would be requested to fund a five-year program of studies on the
environmental consequences of offshore drilling, resource
potential of the OCS, oil spill clean-up technology and oil and
gas production technology.
Map 1
30.
135°
130°
125°
120°
115°
110°
105°
100°
95°
90°
85°
80°
15°
10°
:
:
OCS PLANNING AREAS
43,
WASHIT
70.
OREGON
ATLANTIC
40.
N.
w
CALIFORNIA
MID ATLANTIC
C. CALIFORNIA
359
s.
CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC
50
30°
MARITIME BOUNDARIES AND PLANNING AREA
CENTRAL
EASTERN
STRAITS
:
-
25°
LIMITS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP ARE FOR
WESTERN
FLORIDA
INITIAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND
DO NOT PREJUDICE OR AFFECT UNITED
STATES JURISDICTION IN ANY WAY
GULF OF MEXICO
I
95°
90°
65°
80°
75°
70°
125°
118°
110°
105°
100°
120°