648 



Council on Environacental Quality, 



Washington, D.C., January 16, 1975. 

 Hon. Henry M. Jackson, 

 U.S. Senate, 

 Washington, B.C. 



Dear Senator Jackson : The Senate Commerce Committee recently reported 

 out the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1975 (S. 5S6). Since the 

 Committee Hearings on these amendments, at which I presented testimony of 

 the Council on Environmental Quality on June 11, 1975, a provision has been 

 added to the bill, section 318(b), which would exempt any grants or loans made 

 from the $250 million impact fund from the requirements of the National En- 

 vironmental Policy Act (NEPA) for environmental impact statements. This pro- 

 vision, which was not discussed in committee hearings, is not supported by the 

 Council. 



Under the proposed bill, the Secretary of Commerce would be permitted to make 

 both planning and construction grants to the states to mitigate impacts resulting 

 from federally permitted energy developments on the coasts. The proposed ex- 

 emption to the impact statement requirement of NEPA would apply to federal ac- 

 tions on both types of grants, regardless of whether, in fact, significant impacts 

 would occur. In many instances, particularly where planning grants are involved, 

 such impacts should not result. Consequently, under present provisions of NEPA 

 and the Guidelines of the Council and the Department of Commerce, no impact 

 statement would be required. However, grants may also be sought from the federal 

 impact fund to permit the purchase of land or the construction of a new public 

 facility, not otherwise related to a Federal action. Even though such grants may 

 be intended to mitigate the impacts of certain coastal energy production or fa- 

 cilities such activities may have important environmental effects, or alternatives 

 with lesser effects, that should be thoroughly analyzed by the grantee and the 

 Department of Commerce. Without the impact statement exemption, these effects 

 would be so analyzed and a detailed impact statement of the Department would 

 be required when, on the basis of the particular facts in each case, significant 

 impacts were foreseen. This document would then be used to help federal decision- 

 makers and the public determine the merits of a particular construction grant 

 application. It is the Council's judgment that the Secretary of Commerce should 

 be permit to make the judgments permitted by NEPA as to whether and when 

 an impact statement should be required and used. 



In addition to these reasons, it would be unfortunate for the provisions of 

 NEPA to be limited at a time when Congress and the Executive Branch are explor- 

 ing a number of new ways to pursue and control the development of outer con- 

 tinental shelf oil and gas. Since the provisions of NEPA are intended to proceed 

 and complement federal agency decisionmaking processes it would be unwise to 

 specify in this legislation precisely when the impact statement provision should 

 or should not be applied. This is a subject that I believe requires considerably 

 more discussion and analysis than has been devoted to the proposed NEPA pro- 

 vision of S. 5S6. 

 Sincerely, 



Russell W. Peterson, 



Chairman. 



Mr. President, subsection 319(b) is entirely unnecessary and clearly 

 undesirable. It is a wide-ranp:ing; exemption to NEPA which was not 

 addressed in committee hearings, did not receive detailed discussion 

 or analysis in the markup of S. 586, and hns not been considered by the 

 Interior Committee which has the jurisdiction over NEPA. As such 

 it is a dangerous precedent that should not be established by the 

 Congress. 



Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA requires the preparation f o an environ- 

 mental impact statement on "major Federal actions significantly af- 

 fecting the quality of the human environment." The effect of S. 586's 

 NEPA exemption is to say that no action under S. 586 or the Coastal 

 Zone Management Act is a "m.ajor Federal action". It transfers from 

 the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress the decision on what is or 



