-2 EPA comments on potential violations of or inconsistency with national environmental standards and determines whether adequate information has been provided to assess potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. In general, the degree to which the Agency gets involved in attempting to modify a proposed project depends on the level of environmental impacts, the ability and willingness of the proposing Federal agency to mitigate those impacts, and the level of responsibility EPA has over the type of impact at issue. If the action is a Federal project to be located in or on a specific site the appropriate EPA Regional office has the jurisdiction and delegated responsibility for carrying out the $309 CAA review and working with the proposing Federal agency to resolve any problems. If the action by the proposing Federal department/agency is legislative or regulatory, generally the $309 CAA review will be conducted directly in EPA HQ. For Federal project cases, EPA Headquarters becomes involved if the Region finds that the proposed action in the draft EIS is "environmentally unsatisfactory," or that the draft EIS is "inadequate" to assess the potentially significant environmental impacts of proposed actions. In these cases, Headquarters must approve the Regional comment letter before it is sent. In addition, EPA Headquarters works with Regional personnel in informing interested parties about the EPA action and will assist the Region, as needed, in meeting with the proposing Federal agency to resolve the issues. The CEO is always notified of a DEIS which has been rated "unsatisfactory" or "inadequate" by EPA. If the Region finds that the subsequent final EIS is still "environmentally unsatisfactory," the Region recommends to the Administrator, through the Office of External Affairs, that the matter be referred to the President's CEQ for resolution. At this time, EPA HQ becomes significantly involved in the factual determination and judgment on the EIS. The process is carried out so as to ensure the independence of the EPA review responsibilities and to coordinate in a manner which emphasizes consultation with the lead agency and informing interested parties of EPA actions and concerns. Mr. YATES. Now, did you reply to that letter by any chance? Mr. BETTENBERG. Our reply would be our Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. YATES. Oh, you didn't reply to this letter itself? Mr. BETTENBERG. I don't recollect that we ever replied to it. Mr. YATES. Well, the reason that I asked that question was that I was going to give you the opportunity for putting your reply into the record if you wanted to. But inasmuch as there was no reply, we'll just put the letter into the record by itself. Mr. BETTENBERG. We have spoken with them. Mr. YATES. Well, what is your response to their assertion about their concern? Mr. BETTENBERG. Well, first off, that's the function of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The comment period is to elicit those sorts of things. Mr. YATES. Sure. Mr. BETTENBERG. We thought their suggestion that the committed stipulations that we have in the five-year program be part of the proposed action for purposes of analysis was a good one. We had agreed to do that previously in the case of Sale 95 for Southern California, and we concluded that in the final EIS we ought to do the same for Northern California. So, we're addressing that and we've discussed it with the State. EPA COMMENTS ON NORTH ATLANTIC SALE Mr. YATES. The staff tell me that occasionally you do respond to an EPA statement, as you have done in the case of the North Atlantic. Ms. KALLAUR. What we normally do is that we respond to EPA when they comment on the proposed notice, and we write back telling them how we've addressed their concerns. In the case of comments on an EIS, we would print those comments in the final EIS, and we would explain how we've taken care of the concerns. In this case, as Mr. Bettenberg has mentioned, we've already had meetings with EPA to discuss how we can address their comments in preparing the final EIS. In addition to the commitment of the stipulations, we are developing a new alternative that would provide protection for the Farallon Islands. Mr. YATES. Yes. Ms. KALLAUR. So I think we Mr. YATES. Well, the reason I was addressing this at this time was that Mr. Bettenberg had said that ordinarily you reply through the EIS itself. Mr. BETTENBERG. Yes. Mr. YATES. Except in the case of the North Atlantic. You saw fit to reply there to a comment by EPA in a letter that you have here dated July 30, 1987. Mr. BETTENBERG. Is that the one on the scoping comments? Mr. YATES. I was just going to say why was this different in this case, rather than California? Mr. BETTENBERG. Our regional director thought that the scoping comments that were sent to us and, as I recall, released to the press before they were sent to us, were particularly poorly done from the standpoint of the EPA regional director. They had no rationale behind them. He was recommending deferral actions for things that EPA was proposing that we do based on State proposals that EPA had not yet even seen. So we thought that it was essentially an unprofessional document, and our regional director wrote to them and said so-in not quite so many words, or a few more words, I should say. Mr. YATES. Well, they wrote back to you, saying that they had carefully reviewed your letter and were surprised that their comments resulted in such a negative reaction. Mr. BETTENBERG. Well, I guess we expect a little more professionalism out of EPA than was exhibited in that letter. And normally we get it. Mr. YATES. Okay. Mr. BETTENBERG. Essentially what we thought the regional director was doing was taking a political position rather than a-Mr. YATES. A political position? Mr. BETTENBERG. A small p political position, if you will, as opposed to a Mr. YATES. Small p as opposed to what? Mr. BETTENBERG. As opposed to a Republican or a Democratic political position. Mr. YATES. Small p could be either Republican or Democrat, and a big P could be either Republican or Democratic. Mr. BETTENBERG. You're probably right. Mr. YATES. I am right. Mr. BETTENBERG. You are right. [Laughter.] Mr. YATES. Okay. Well, why don't we put the small p discussion into the record at this point. What's your relations with them now in the North Atlantic? Mr. BETTENBERG. I'd have to ask Bruce Weetman, our regional director. Mr. YATES. Bruce Weetman? Tell us, are you as hurt now as you were then? Mr. WEETMAN. Oh, no, sir. We had meetings with them as recently as a week or two ago, at a regional board meeting, and we got along fine. Mr. YATES. I see. Okay. In spite of these letters? Mr. WEETMAN. Oh, we generally get along fine. Mr. YATES. But are these letters an aberration then? Mr. WEETMAN. I think so. I hope so. Mr. YATES. All right. The aberration letters may go into the record. [The information follows:] UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 July 3, 1987 Barry Clark Minerals Management Service Atlantic OCS Region 1951 Kidwell Drive Suite 601 Vienna, VA 22180 Dear Mr. Clark: In accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, we are submitting these comments as part of the scoping process for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 96, North Atlantic Planning Area. Before presenting our scoping comments, we wish to briefly reiterate EPA's position that this lease sale should be deferred or cancelled at this time. This position was presented in comments on the EIS for the Five Year OCS Leasing Program for mid-1987 to mid-1992. It is based on our belief that the risks posed by oil and gas drilling are unreasonable and unnecessary in view of the exceptionally valuable biological resources on and near Georges Bank, the relatively low oil and gas estimates for the North Atlantic, and the low level of industry interest in the area. In considering what recommendations to submit to you as part of the scoping process for the Lease Sale 96 EIS, we have focused primarily on a recurring pattern of significant flaws which we perceive in EISS for past North Atlantic lease sales as well as five year plans. In our opinion, these flaws center principally around the EISS' treatment of alternatives, the size of the lease area, and the conclusions concerning impacts. ALTERNATIVES Because of the longstanding concerns about the risks of oil drilling in the North Atlantic, shared by most affected parties and raised consistently throughout the history of OCS leasing, we believe it is particularly important for the Lease Sale 96 EIS to devote substantial, thoughtful attention to the alternative of deferring or cancelling the sale. In past EISS, including the most recent Five Year Plan EIS, the rationale for not deferring the North Atlantic sale has been most unclear. For example, the Five Year Plan EIS contains numerous statements indicating that the Department of Interior recognizes the extremely high value of the North Atlantic fisheries and the low industry interest and hydrocarbon resource estimates for North Atlantic lease sales. Yet, the Five Year Program includes no deferrals of any part of the North Atlantic. By contrast, the Five Year Program does include fourteen deferrals of other parts of the OCs, but for reasons which are not fully explained. An example is eight subareas offshore California which are being deferred because it is unlikely a concensus regarding OCS development offshore California could be reached if these areas are not excluded" (p. II-6, Five Year Plan EIS). Similarly, the reasons for proceeding with the North Atlantic sale have simply been unpersuasive and unsupported by even Interior's own documentation to date. these reasons, we strongly urge Interior to give the deferral/ cancellation alternative a fresh look in the Lease Sale 96 EIS. For Further, we request that the EIS thoroughly examine the full range of alternatives involving deletions of areas of concern: tracts included in the Congressional moratorium; tracts within 400 meters (including all of Georges Bank and the Northeast Peak); tracts adjacent to and in submarine canyons; preferred areas for endangered species; scallop beds; the Gulf of Maine; established and/or proposed port access routes; tracts in depths greater than 2000 meters; any other deletions recommended by states. The concerns which form the basis for the deletion recommendations have been fully documented on numerous occasions and will not be repeated here. We hope that the alternatives will be structured in a way which informs the decisionmaker and the public of the costs and benefits of each individual deletion option, combinations of deletion options, and the option of offering only nonenvironmentally sensitive tracts with hydrocarbon resource poten tial. We trust that MMS agrees that these are reasonable alternatives from the standpoint of NEPA and the OCS Lands Act for purposes of consideration in the EIS and in the ultimate decision on how or whether to offer Lease Sale 96. If there is disagreement on this issue, we believe it will be most important for the EIS to fully discuss the reasons. SIZE OF THE LEASE AREA At this time it is not clear to us how large an area of the North Atlantic will be included for purposes of impact assessment in the EIS. We are generally familiar with the extent of industry interest expressed thus far for this lease sale, and with MMS's decision in the recently approved Five Year Plan to focus on promising acreage. We believe it is critically important for MMS to ensure that the Lease Sale 96 EIS does not encompass too large an area because of problems this approach has caused in past EISS. As we and others have stated in the past, focusing on too large an area in impact assessment has proven environmentally |