A decision to move ahead with oil and gas development on the Atlantic OCS and in the Gulf of

Alaska will call for close coordination of planning among Federal , state , and local governments . The creation of strong and expert coastal zone management agencies in the states involved and thorough implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act will help to insure that the interests of the State governments and their citizens will be appropriately represented .

In conducting this study , the Council held public hearings in Washington , D . C . , Alaska , and various cities on the Atlantic coast . Representatives of environmental groups and of industry were consulted and kept advised of the study ' s progress . An advisory committee representing the Governor of each Atlantic coast state and Alaska was established and on three occasions met with the Council to review progress . Much of the research and information contained in the report was developed through contracts with universities and private consulting firms working with the Council and a number of Federal interagency working groups . Finally , a special panel of the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS ) performed a critique of our study which is attached to this report .

The NAS panel ' s critique generally endorses the findings and recommendations of CEQ ' s report . Specifically , the panel commends the report as ' a useful first step toward the development of new Federal policies for resource development in these two OCS areas . The panel also concurs with the Council ' s recommendations for decreasing the risk of OCS operations and for minimizing onshore impacts through improved coordination among governmental agencies .

The panel agreed with the assessment that OCS operations in the Gulf of Alaska would present the highest environmental risk but took exception to the Council ' s ranking of regions in the Atlantic OCS . The panel expressed the belief that the criteria used in making the rankings were inadequate and incomplete and that other criteria should be considered . The Council believes that consideration of the other criteria mentioned by the NAS panel would not have changed the relative order of ranking . In fact , the effect of oil on the offshore marine environment was considered to the extent possible , as were the alternative uses of the OCS .

Other issues raised by the NAS critique , such as an expanded involvement of the Federal Government in oil and gas exploration , the relationship of this study to Project Independence , and national policy on annual energy growth rates , are clearly outside the scope of the assignment covered by this study . The Council will continue , of course , to work with the Department of the Interior , the Federal Energy Office , and other Federal agencies on the role of OCS oil and gas resources and other factors in our national energy policy .

We hope that our report satisfactorily provides the study of environmental impact you requested to help assess the future course of action on the OCS .

Respectfully ,

Russell 2 .

Peterson

Russell W . Peterson , Chairman

John A . Busterud , Member

Beatrice & Welland

Beatrice E . Willard , Member

The President The White House Washington , D . C . 20500

iv