[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 33: IMPOSING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON THE LEASING
UNDER THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT OF LANDS OFFSHORE FLORIDA,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 5, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-247 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
KEVIN BRADY, Texas Samoa
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JAY INSLEE, Washington
Bill Condit, Professional Staff
Mike Henry, Professional Staff
Deborah Lanzone, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held August 5, 1999...................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the
U.S. Territory of Guam..................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Goss, Hon. Porter J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Statements of witnesses:
Bedell, Charles A., Murphy Exploration and Production
Company, National Ocean Industries Association; American
Petroleum Institute; U.S. Oil and Gas Association;
Independent Petroleum Association of America; Domestic
Petroleum Council; NAD International Association of
Drilling Contractors....................................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 00
Hakes, Jay, Administrator, Energy Information Administration,
U.S. Department of Energy.................................. 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 00
Joyner, Mike, Director, Legislative and Governmental Affairs,
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection......... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Rosenbusch, Walt, Director of Minerals Management Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior;........................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Additional material supplied:
Text of H.R. 33.............................................. 4
Coalition for Sustainable Resources, Inc, prepared statement
of......................................................... 57
HEARING ON H.R. 33: IMPOSING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON
THE LEASING UNDER THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT OF LANDS
OFFSHORE FLORIDA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
THURSDAY, august 5, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
& Mineral Resources,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommitte met, pusuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Cubin
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Cubin. The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals--
Mineral Resources will please come to order. The Subcommittee
on Energy and Mineral Resources meets today to take testimony
on a bill introduced by Congressman Porter Goss of the 14th
congressional district of Florida. H.R. 33 is a bill imposing
certain restrictions and requirements on the leasing under the
outer continental shelf lands off the shore of Florida,
obviously. Mr. Goss has introduced this measure for several
Congresses now. Twice, previously, he has appeared before the
Subcommittee, when we have held oversight hearings on the issue
of moratoria on OCS oil and gas leasing. But, today is the
first time that we have sought testimony on his bill per se, so
I know that he feels like he's making huge progress.
We will hear the administration's views, as well as those
of the State of Florida and the petroleum industry. Basically,
H.R. 33 directs the establishment of a joint Federal-state task
force and mandates the preparation of assessments, studies, and
research, all to be received by the task force before the
Secretary of Interior may carry out his responsibilities under
the OCS LA, regarding oil and gas leasing offshore of the State
of Florida. Although the bill encompasses the entire Federal
OCS from the Florida line and the Atlantic around the Florida
Keys and Florida Bay into the Gulf of Mexico to the Alabama
border, much of which is already under a moratoria in one
fashion or another, but the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning
area, especially the portion adjacent to the very productive
central planning area, is not. However, the current five-year
program plan of the MMS, the document which prescribes the pace
and progression of the leases sales, shows but one sale for the
eastern Gulf and that is not until late in the year 2001.
Yes, there are already issued leases and even a few with
commercial discoveries of hydrocarbons within the eastern Gulf
planning area, but the Coastal Zone Management Act provides
opportunity for the State of Florida Government to comment upon
Interior Department approvals or denials of proposed drilling
or development plans. Of course, the issue boils down to just
how much deference, if any, the Feds should give the governor
of a state on OCS leasing decisions off that state shoreline.
My colleagues and I from the western states here over and
over again, in the course of debates with many members
representing non-public land states, that these are all Federal
lands, you know; my constituents own them just as much as you
do. Well, Federal oil and gas development of one's coastline is
not unlike my situation and I'd like to support even partial
devolution of authority to coastal state governors
participating in Federal OCS decision-making. But, I see very
little reciprocity of this thinking, when it comes to
empowering my governor to be an equal partner with the Feds,
when it comes to shaping grazing, timber, mining, and oil and
gas, and other public land policies. Furthermore, although
Wyoming has a bountiful endowment of mineral resources on our
public lands, it is still far behind the Gulf of Mexico OCS in
the dollar value of those assets flowing to the Treasury.
My constituents need to know that decisions we make here in
Congress affecting this rather substantial revenue stream are
soundly supported by objective science. We ask no less of the
Secretary of Interior, when he's putting wolves and grizzly
bears in our backyard, but we don't always get it.
Let me finish with the observation that the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is a pot of money that is drawing
particularly strong interest this year. There are several
competing proposals in Congress and the Clinton administration
has ideas as well, all looking to put OCS receipts to work
purchasing environmentally sensitive lands, conserving habitat,
and building recreational facilities. But, we must remember
from where those dollars flow. It is the well bore of a
producing oil and gas lease. No leasing means no drilling,
which means no production, which means no replenishment of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund account. There is no free
lunch.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening
statement he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Represetntative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming
The Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals meets today to take
testimony on a bill introduced by Congressman Porter Goss of
the 14th Congressional District of Florida. H.R. 33 is a bill
imposing certain restrictions and requirements on the leasing
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of lands offshore
of Florida, and for other purposes.
Mr. Goss has introduced this measure for several Congresses
now. Twice previously he has appeared before the Subcommittee
when we have held oversight hearings on the issue of moratoria
on OCS oil and gas leasing. But today is the first time we have
sought testimony on his bill, per se. We will hear the
Administration's views as well as those of the State of Florida
and the petroleum industry.
Basically, H.R. 33 directs the establishment of a joint
Federal-state task force and mandates the preparation of
assessments, studies and research, all to be reviewed by the
task force, before the Secretary of the Interior may carry out
his responsibilities under the OCSLA regarding oil and gas
leasing offshore of the State of Florida. Although the bill
encompasses the entire Federal OCS from the Georgia line in the
Atlantic around the Florida Keys and Florida Bay into the Gulf
of Mexico to the Alabama border, much of this area is already
under a moratorium in one fashion or another. But the eastern
Gulf of Mexico planning area, especially that portion adjacent
to the very productive central planning area, is not. However,
the current 5-year program plan of the Minerals Management
Service, the document which prescribes the pace and progression
of lease sales, shows but one sale for the eastern Gulf and
that is not until late in the year 2001.
Yes, there are some already issued leases and even a few
with commercial discoveries of hydrocarbons within the eastern
Gulf planning area. But, the Coastal Zone Management Act
provides opportunity for the State of Florida government to
comment upon Interior Department approvals (or denials) of
proposed drilling or development plans. Of course, the issue
boils down to just how much deference, if any, the feds should
give to the Governor of a state on OCS leasing decisions off
that state's shoreline.
My colleagues and I from western States hear over and over
again in the course of debates with from Members representing
non-public land states ``These are Federal lands, you know. My
constituents own them just as much as yours do.'' Well, Federal
oil and gas development of one's coastline is not unlike my
situation. Now, I'd like to support even partial devolution of
authority to coastal state Governors participating in Federal
OCS decisionmaking. But I see very little reciprocity of this
thinking when it comes to empowering my Governor to be an equal
partner with the feds when it comes to shaping grazing, timber,
mining, oil & gas and other public land policies in Wyoming.
Furthermore, although Wyoming has a bountiful endowment of
mineral resources on our public lands, it still is far behind
the Gulf of Mexico OCS in the dollar value of those assets
flowing to the Treasury. My constituents need to know that
decisions we make here in Congress affecting this rather
substantial revenue stream are soundly supported by objective
science. We ask no less of the Secretary of the Interior when
he's putting wolves and grizzly bears in our backyard--but we
don't always get it.
Let me finish with the observation that the Land & Water
Conservation Fund is a pot of money that is drawing
particularly strong interest this year. There are several
competing proposals in Congress and Clinton Administration
ideas, as well, all looking to put OCS receipts to work
purchasing environmentally sensitive lands, conserving habitat
and building recreational facilities. But, we must remember
from where those dollars flow--its the well bore of a producing
oil and gas lease. No leasing means no drilling, which means no
production, which means no replenishment of the LWCF account.
There is no free lunch.
[The Bill follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.009
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE U.S. TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Madame Chair, I thank you for holding
today's hearing on our colleague Congressman Porter Goss's
bill, H.R. 33, a bill that would impose restrictions and
requirements on the leasing and development of certain outer
continental shelf leases located off the coast of Florida. I
understand Mr. Goss introduced this legislation in the 105th
Congress, although the Committee did not take action on that
bill.
The OCS program is a major source of energy for the nation,
currently providing about 18 percent of our total domestic
production of oil and 27 percent of our production of natural
gas; but, as is evidenced in Florida, it is not without
controversy. As a result of the conflicts that have accompanied
development of these resources, both the Congress and the
President have imposed moratoria on new leasing and development
in certain areas of the nation's OCS, including Florida. The
Clinton Administration, like the Bush administration before it,
supports the moratorium on oil and gas leasing off the Florida
coastline. The requirement OCS five-year oil and gas program,
covering the 1997 to 2002 period, excludes all areas included
in the congressional restrictions from leasing consideration.
In addition, President Clinton has excluded the area from
leasing outside the eastern Gulf of Mexico until 2012.
In closing, let me say that I appreciate and support the
intent of the concept proposed by Mr. Goss. If the State of
Florida and its citizens are opposed to oil and gas development
off of its coastline, the Federal government should respect
that, even in Federal waters. However, the administration has
legitimate concerns, which I'm sure we'll hear later, related
to cost duplication of effort and legal implications that
should be answered before the Subcommittee disposes of this
bill. With that in mind, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Let me remind the
witnesses that they must limit their oral testimony to five
minutes, but that their entire statement will be put in the
record. Also, let me mention that these hearings are now
broadcast live over the Internet and there is an on/off switch
on your microphones for your use in controlling the privacy of
any whispering that you might want to be doing back there.
So, with that, I'd like to ask for--first of all, welcome
Congressman Goss to the Subcommittee again this year and I look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement on Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert Underwood, a Delegeate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam
Madam Chair, thank you for holding today's hearing on our
colleague, Congressman Porter Goss's bill, H.R. 33, a bill that
would impose restrictions and requirements on the leasing and
development of certain Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] leases
located off the coast of Florida. I understand Mr. Goss
introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress, although the
Committee did not take action on that bill.
The OCS program is a major source of energy for the Nation,
currently providing about 18 percent of our total domestic
production of oil and 27 percent of our production of natural
gas, but, as is evidenced in Florida, it is not without
controversy. As a result of the conflicts that have accompanied
development of these resources, both the Congress and the
President have imposed moratoria on new leasing and development
in certain areas of our Nation's OCS, including Florida.
The Clinton Administration, like the Bush Administration
before it, supports the moratorium on oil and gas leasing off
the Florida coastline. The required OCS 5-Year Oil and Gas
Program, covering the 1997-2002 period, excludes all areas
included in the congressional restrictions from leasing
consideration. In addition, President Clinton has excluded the
area from leasing outside the eastern Gulf of Mexico until
2012.
In closing, let me say, that I appreciate the intent of the
concept proposed by Mr. Goss. lf the State of Florida and its
citizens are opposed to oil and gas development off its
coastline, the Federal Government should respect that--even in
Federal waters. However, the Administration has legitimate
concerns related to cost, duplication of effort and legal
implications that should be answered before this Subcommittee
can responsibly dispose of the bill. With that in mind, I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Goss. Thank you, very much, Madame Chairwoman. I assure
you, I have nothing to hide and whisper about. I'm very proud
of this legislation. I'm extremely grateful to you and your
Subcommittee for having this hearing. As you know, this is a
quest not of mine, but of the people of Florida and the entire
Florida delegation, and we believe we are leading the way,
actually, for other states and other areas that have had
similar concerns. And I would certainly say I well heard and am
very receptive to your remarks about your beautiful state. I
would point out there are some vast differences between our
states: the highest point above sea level in my hometown is 14
feet above sea level; I suspect a slightly different statistic
from where you live.
But the point is, it's the same and I would be very happy
to join you in this approach, because we think this is a good
approach that we have, to try and make decisions that are
important decisions for both the country and the state and base
those decisions on good fact, rather than on political pressure
or who's got the loudest voice or whatever other criteria might
be in play. So what we have got here is a situation well
explained in my prepared remarks, which I will just summarize
very quickly.
We've got an annual moratorium, which we've affected by
putting a rider on an appropriations bill since 1983. That is a
very bizarre way to handle what is a legitimate challenge that
ought to be worked out by wise people with interest in this to
come to a conclusion that has more certainty and more
efficiency. And that's what we are proposing, setting up such a
mechanism. We're calling it a joint Federal-state OCS task
force and the composition of that task force, we have made a
recommendation. I don't pretend to have total prescience or
wisdom on that point. We felt it was a good balance the way we
set it up. If there are other recommendations, obviously, we're
receptive.
The point is right now, we are losing something by having
this annual moratorium, in addition to time--legislative time
in Congress. We find that Florida does have some protection
against future leases, but not against the existing leases and
there are property rights that go with those leases. So, we
would like to deal with making a good decision not only with
future, but how do we deal with the problem we have today. And
I assure you, that's of great interest to the citizens and the
government of Florida today. And equally, the oil and gas
industry does have several existing leases, which they paid
good, hard dollars for, and they're unable to develop long-term
strategy and plans to determine the viability and the
exploitation of those leases, and that is, of course, unfair.
So what we are trying to do is to go forward from that position
and set up a process, where we can make good decisions that
will remove those problems and create benefits for all
interested parties.
We agree on certain things, and when I say ``we,'' it's the
people of Florida. And I'm not talking environmentalist or
business or government or local government or rural farm owner
or beach front dweller; I'm talking about everybody in Florida
pretty much agrees that if we had an oil spill, it would have a
devastating impact on our economy, given the basis of our
economy being pretty much our beaches and shores, the tourism,
and all the service industry, and relocation and growth of
residents that goes with that.
The second thing we pretty much all agree on is that we
don't have the necessary scientific data about the eastern Gulf
and, in fact, other waters, whether they are properly state
waters. And the boundary changes on one side of Florida and
it's different on the other side, because of the--we're dealing
with the Atlantic Ocean on one side and Gulf of Mexico on the
other and different historical precedence of our we got there.
But, the fact is, whether the water is Florida, American,
Federal, or something that doesn't bother most people, they
want to have the quality of water and they want to have it
protected and they want to have a good beach experience. And
the desire to maintain a good environment is real and the
desire to maintain a viable economy is real, and they're both
entirely legitimate and fall within our government purview and
what we're about up here.
I think it is very important to state that we understand
that this bill, as presented to you, is an improvement on the
annual moratorium system, which is probably driving the
appropriators crazy and it's certainly driving the rules
committee crazy, because we don't like doing that, as you know,
in the rules committee. There's been question that the Land and
Water Conservation Fund could be affected. Yes, it could, and
that should be part of the scientific findings, because we are
not interested in doing anything, except creating some
certainty for the business interest, and I think we do that on
the basis of a factual examination of what we can do.
I'm aware there are some concerns about national security.
Believe me, I do pay a lot of attention to national security,
as you well know, and I understand that we need to take that
into the formula for the reserves that may be in the Gulf of
Mexico to deal with that, in the event that other sources of
oil and gas are shut off.
All of those questions, I think are timely and it's time to
face them straightforward and that's why I bring this forward.
And I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify and we
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goss follows:]
Statement of Hon. Porter J. Goss, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida
Madame Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you this afternoon. I commend the panel for holding this
hearing. The issue of outer continental shelf oil and gas
exploration moratoria is a vital one for Florida and many other
coastal states. I would like to discuss this issue from
Florida's perspective, and make the case for H.R. 33, a bill
that I have again introduced as a proposed solution to the
existing Florida OCS stalemate. I am particularly pleased that
the Committee has invited Mr. Michael Joyner of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, to testify about this
proposal. I look forward to his testimony.
As you know, each year Congress enacts restrictions on oil
and gas activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico as part of the
Interior Appropriations bill. Florida's OCS moratorium was
instituted in 1983, by our colleague, Rep. Bill Young, and it
accomplished its goal as a short-term fix to protect the
Florida coastline from a possible expansion of oil and gas
exploration. I would note that this moratorium has enjoyed
unanimous support from Florida's Congressional delegation.
However, it was never intended to be a long term solution and I
believe it fails to satisfy the interests of both parties to
this debate: Florida is only protected against new oil and gas
leases, while the oil industry is left holding several existing
leases but without the ability to make any long-term
exploration and development plans in the Eastern Gulf. I think
that, fifteen years later, everyone realizes we need to find a
better way to do business.
Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because of the
threat it presents to the state's greatest natural and economic
resources: our coastal environment. Florida's beaches,
fisheries, and wildlife draw millions of tourists each year
from all over the globe, supporting our state's largest
industry. Tourism supports, directly or indirectly, millions of
jobs all across Florida, and the industry generates billions of
dollars every year. A 1990 study by Lee County estimates that a
major blowout/oil spill could cost the economy of Lee County
alone some $590 million in lost revenue. This translates into a
loss of 12,300 jobs. Also, the on-shore facilities required to
process the oil would likely change the character of the
Florida coast, possibly contribute to the pollution of the
environment, and pose serious problems for Florida's tourism
and real estate industries.
Concern about this issue is not limited to our business
community--there are several grass-roots groups who are
dedicated to preserving and protecting our coastline. There is
a petition and letter writing campaign in my district run by
Marge and David Ward of the Citizens Association of Bonita
Beach. The Wards'tireless efforts have yielded over 30,000
signatures opposed to drilling off Florida's coast, and they
have generated letters of support from local chambers of
commerce, government, and elected officials.
The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine
areas in the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove
forests and seagrass beds provide an irreplaceable link in the
life of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's
commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries because
they support the nurseries for most commercially harvested
fish. Perhaps the most environmentally delicate regions in the
Gulf, estuaries could be damaged beyond repair by a relatively
small oil spill.
H.R. 33 was developed after extensive consultation with the
state of Florida. It was supported by Governor Chiles and I am
pleased to report that our new Governor, Jeb Bush, has also
enthusiastically endorsed the proposal. In addition, the bill
has a wide range of support among both the public and private
sector in the state. I am particularly pleased to report that
every single member of the Florida Congressional delegation has
cosponsored H.R. 33, as in past Congresses.
This legislation was introduced to provide for a ``time
out'' period during which no new leasing or drilling could take
place in Federal waters off Florida's coast. During this
period, a joint Federal-state task force would review the
available scientific and environmental studies and (if
necessary) recommend further ones. Once the joint task force
determines that an adequate base of data exists, it would
recommend what areas (if any) off Florida could safely sustain
oil and gas exploration and production.
The benefits of this approach include:
the opportunity to develop a more precise policy than
afforded under the current moratorium, which must be renewed by
Congress each year. This should provide the oil industry with greater
certainty and an ability to plan in the context of a long-term
strategy; and
a central role for the State of Florida in a decision with
great impact on our state--even though that decision would apply to
waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and
a decision that accurately reflects scientific rather than
political pressures.
I recognize that some concerns have been raised about this
proposal and I would like to take a moment to discuss some of
those issues. First, the question I hear most often is why do
we need to pass this legislation, when it is very likely
Congress will continue to enact the annual moratorium, as it
has for fifteen years. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the
moratorium provides a short-term way to deal with this issue,
but, in the long-run, it shortchanges both the State of Florida
and the oil industry. I believe both parties would benefit from
a scientifically crafted long-term approach to management of
the Eastern Gulf. In addition, from a process perspective, I
would prefer not to address substantive legislative issues
through ``riders'' to an appropriations bill.
In addition, I have also heard concerns about the effect of
H.R. 33 on revenues for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF), the principal source of Federal funds for land
acquisitions by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Forest Service. The LWCF is funded by revenues from Federal
outdoor recreation user fees, the Federal motorboat fuel tax,
property sales and from oil and gas leases on the Outer
Continental Shelf. As the Subcommittee is well aware, OCS
revenues have accounted for more than 90 percent of the
deposits in the LWCF, and, in some years, almost all deposits
to this fund. I agree that the effect of H.R. 33 on revenues
for LWCF is a critically important question, particularly given
Federal land acquisition in Florida. Since the current
moratorium prohibits any new leases, it effectively forecloses
the possibility of future contributions to the fund from OCS
activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. If we continue our
current approach--adopting the moratorium each year--that won't
change. The joint-task force created by H.R. 33 would be
charged with making a scientific decision on OCS activities in
the Eastern Gulf and their recommendations would effectively
address the LWCF issue.
Finally, I have heard concerns about the make-up of the
joint task force provided for in H.R. 33. As drafted, the bill
would create a task force consisting of one representative each
from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Minerals
Management Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; four
representatives from the State of Florida appointed by the
Governor; and three members appointed by the Secretary of
Commerce based on nominations from the National Academy of
Sciences who are professional scientists in the field of
physical oceanography, marine ecology, and social science.
Clearly, the intent is to provide a scientific panel while
allowing input from the State of Florida. If the Subcommittee
wants to reconsider this makeup, I would be happy to discuss
that issue further.
Finally, let me thank the Subcommittee for its indulgence
in holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you on
moving this proposal forward.
Thank you again.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Goss. The Chair now recognizes
Mike Joyner, Director of Legislative and Governmental Affairs
for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
STATEMENT OF MIKE JOYNER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Mr. Joyner. Thank you, very much, and good afternoon,
Madame Chairman and committee member. I am Mike Joyner, the
Director of Legislative and Governmental Affairs for the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Thanks, very
much, for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
Governor Bush and the citizens of the State of Florida,
regarding Congressman Goss's outer continental shelf leasing
restriction bill, H.R. 33. This legislation will assure that
adequate environmental studies and completed--or completed,
pardon me, resulting in a better understanding of environmental
risks associated with OCS oil and gas activities. It is one of
several bills that are pending that limits oil and gas
activities off of the Nation's coast.
The State of Florida has concerns over industrial
activities associated with offshore oil and gas resource
development that may negatively impact our coast. The Florida
economy is based upon a warm climate, clean waters, and
pristine natural areas. I think most of you know, you've
probably all traveled to Florida, but environmental-related
industry, such as recreation, tourism, commercial and
recreational fishing, as well as agriculture, are major
economic activities in Florida. Annually, Florida welcomes
approximately 42 million visitors from around the world, which
results in billions of dollars, obviously, to our state and
local economy. Clearly, with the majority of the state's
population deriving income from jobs related to our rich and
diverse marine and coastal resources, the state cannot afford
to risk an environmental or economic disaster. Governor Bush
opposes drilling off of Florida and will continue to carefully
scrutinize all coastal activities, to ensure that they do not
interfere with the state's interest.
Florida's coastal and marine environments, truly national
treasures, provide an array of habitat, including offshore
fishing grounds, productive estuaries, mangrove forests, sea
grass beds, sandy white beaches and islands, and much of which
are protected under state and federal preservation efforts.
These coastal and marine resources are the foundation of
Florida's economy and its quality of life. The state, often
with federal assistance, strives to protect the self-sustaining
resources for the benefit of our wildlife and those who live in
and visit Florida.
Clearly, there are no active leases or plans to lease areas
off of Florida's Atlantic coast, again repeating some of the
things that Congressman Goss said; please bear with me.
Primarily, our primary interest in oil and gas development off
of Florida remains in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the
panhandle region. New leasing near Florida's coastline was
terminated through the support of previous governors, the
Florida cabinet, the Florida congressional delegation, and
certainly with the help of the federal government. However,
there are approximately 150 active leases, totaling
approximately 1,350 square miles remaining in the eastern Gulf
of Mexico and further development and production is being
proposed just 25 miles off of Florida's coast.
The National Academy of Science has completed their
comprehensive review of the Mineral Management Service's
environmental studies program with federal, state, and academic
scientists, and they recommend that MMS conduct further
studies. Any new leasing activities is alarming to those of us
in Florida without completed environmental studies and
analysis. While MMS has been working to rectify deficiencies
identified by the Academy, progress in completing these studies
has been somewhat slow. The MMS is presently conducting studies
off the Florida panhandle. I'd also mention that a workshop is
being planned for the fall, I think in October, a couple of
months from now, to further identify and design ecological and
physical oceanographic studies that are necessary for
environmental analysis.
It is important to remember that the eastern Gulf of Mexico
is uniquely geographically and ecologically--or is unique,
pardon me, geographically and ecologically from the central and
western Gulf. The vast majority of the central and western Gulf
areas consist of soft muddy bottoms, where the eastern Gulf is
often composed of carbonate sands with scattered low rocky--low
relief rocky bottoms, which support subtropical plants and
animals. Again, if you've been to Florida, you certainly have
hopefully seen that firsthand. North America's only shallow
water tropical reef system is found off of Florida and can be
influenced by activities occurring in the Gulf of Mexico;
again, Key West, an area I used to visit often growing up in
Florida.
Information learned from many years of oil and gas
activities offshore Texas and Louisiana often unfortunately
cannot be extrapolated to predict and evaluate impacts, which
could occur in Florida's eastern Gulf. Many scientists believe
that estuary Gulf marine and coastal communities are not well
adapted to understanding the adverse impacts associated with
oil and gas development. Catastrophic events, such as oil
spills, may be unlikely, but studies--and I'll wrap this up
quickly--but studies must address this issue, as well as other
long-term and cumulative environmental social impacts. These
include issues such as physical disturbances caused by
anchoring, pipeline placement and rig construction, a
resuspension of bottom sediments, chronic pollution from
discharge of drilling effluents, production effluents and
accidental releases of other toxic materials, social and
economic impacts, and certainly environmental and threatened
species.
Just a few more things. Without adequate environmental and
socioeconomic information analysis, Florida has no assurances
that OCS oil and gas activities can take place without causing
irreparable harm to our natural and economic resources. It is
premature to consider further exploration or precedent setting
development and production in this undeveloped area until
adequate environmental studies are completed and a better
understanding of our environmental risk is known.
Similar to H.R. 112, which I understand affects California,
H.R. 33 prohibits additional leasing and exploration or
development, until adequate body of science and environmental
information is available. Congressman Goss will--Congressman
Goss's bill, excuse me, will allow MMS to complete studies,
which address concerns raised by both the National Academy and
our State of Florida. We encourage the markup and the passage
of H.R. 33.
Finally, and in closing, Governor Bush and the State of
Florida appreciate the opportunity to comment--or to submit
comments and endorse Congressman Goss's bill. And on just a
personal note, thanks, very much, I appreciate your courtesies.
[The statement of Mr. Joyner follows:]
Statement of Mike Joyner, State of Florida
Good afternoon, Madame Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am Mike Joyner, Director of Legislative and
Governmental Affairs with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. Thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony on behalf of Governor Jeb Bush and the
citizens of Florida regarding Congressman Porter Goss' Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing restriction bill, H.R. 33. This
legislation will assure that adequate environmental studies are
completed resulting in a better understanding of environmental
risks associated with OCS oil and gas activities. It is one of
several bills which are pending that limit oil and gas
activities off the nation's coasts.
The State of Florida has concerns over industrial
activities associated with offshore oil and gas resources
development that may negatively impact our coasts. The Florida
economy is based upon its warm climate, clean waters and
pristine natural areas. Environmental related industries, such
as recreation, tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, as
well as agriculture are major economic activities of Florida.
Annually, Florida welcomes over 42 million tourists from around
the world, resulting in billions of dollars added to our state
and local economies. Clearly, with a majority of the state's
population deriving income from jobs related to our rich and
diverse marine and coastal resources, the state cannot afford
to risk an environmental or economic disaster. Governor Bush
opposes drilling off of Florida and will continue to carefully
scrutinize all coastal activities to ensure that they do not
interfere with the state's interests.
Florida's coastal and marine environments, truly national
treasures, provide an array of habitats including offshore
fishing grounds, productive estuaries, mangrove forests, sea
grass beds, sandy white beaches and barrier islands, much of
which are protected under state and Federal preservation
efforts. These coastal and marine resources are the foundation
of Florida's economy and quality of life. The state, often with
Federal assistance, strives to protect these self-sustaining
resources for the benefit of our wildlife and those who live in
and visit Florida.
Currently, there are no active leases or plans to lease
areas off Florida's Atlantic coast. Primary interest in oil and
gas development off Florida remains in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico off the panhandle region. New leasing near Florida
coastline was terminated through the support of previous
Governors, the Florida Cabinet, the Florida Congressional
Delegation, and eventually the Federal Government. However,
about 150 active leases totaling about 1,350 square miles
remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and further development
and production is being proposed just 25 miles off Florida. The
National Academy of Sciences has completed their comprehensive
review of the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) environmental
studies program with Federal, state and academic scientists,
and they recommended that the MMS conduct further studies. Any
new leasing activity is alarming without completed
environmental studies and analyses.
While the MMS has been working to rectify deficiencies
identified by the Academy, progress in completing these studies
has been slow. The MMS is presently conducting studies off the
Florida panhandle. A workshop is also being planned for the
fall to further identify and design ecological and physical
oceanographic studies that are necessary for environmental
analyses. It is important to remember the eastern Gulf of
Mexico is unique, geologically and ecologically from the
central and western Gulf. The vast majority of the central and
western Gulf consists of soft, muddy bottoms, where the eastern
Gulf is often composed of carbonate sands with scattered low-
relief rocky bottoms which support sub-tropical plants and
animals. North America's only shallow-water tropical coral reef
system is found off of Florida and can be influenced by
activities occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. Information learned
from many years of oil and gas activities offshore Texas and
Louisiana often cannot be extrapolated to predict and evaluate
impacts which could occur in the Florida eastern Gulf. Many
scientists believe that the eastern Gulf's marine and coastal
communities are not well adapted to withstand the adverse
impacts associated with oil and gas development.
Catastrophic events such as oil spills may be unlikely, but
studies must address this issue as well as other long-term and
cumulative environmental and social effects. These include
issues such as physical disturbances caused by anchoring,
pipeline placement and rig construction; the resuspension of
bottom sediments; chronic pollution from discharges of drilling
effluents, production effluents, and accidental releases of
other toxic materials; social and economic impacts; and
endangered and threatened species.
Without adequate environmental and socio-economic
information and analyses, Florida has no assurances that OCS
oil and gas activities can take place without causing
irreparable harm to our natural and economic resources. It is
premature to consider further exploration or precedent setting
development and production in this undeveloped area, until
adequate environmental studies are completed, and a better
understanding of environmental risks is known.
Similar to H.R. 112 affecting California, H.R. 33 prohibits
additional leasing and, exploration or development until an
adequate body of scientific and environmental information is
available. Congressman Goss' bill would allow the MMS to
complete studies which address concerns raised by both the
National Academy and the state. We encourage the markup and
passage of H.R. 33.
Governor Jeb Bush and the State of Florida appreciate the
opportunity to submit comments and endorse Congressman Goss'
bill.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for
being here, as well.
I find myself in a situation that is somewhat
uncomfortable, because I totally am committed to the idea that
the states, the people that live in the states, the governors
of the states ought to have a large say so in what happens
around their--in your case, around your shores, and, in my
case, on public lands. I wish the states actually had more say
so in that.
The position that I--I guess the line of questioning that I
want to follow, this will be for you, Porter, the United States
Coast Guard, as you know, maintains oil spill data for the
federal government that is on the outer continental shelf. And
the statistical summary of oil spill data that they have shows
that vessel traffic is by far the more likely source of oil
pollution into jurisdiction waters of the United States than
are the platforms or the subsea pipelines or those kind of
things. So, I know that that's one of the things that you would
want to have studied in a scientific way.
But what I want to ask you is something that I have run
into in Wyoming. Sometimes, there's a mind set that people just
have an idea this is bad. I'm going to speak of Crown Butte
gold mine, where someone came out and said that developing that
mine would ruin Yellowstone. Now, I personally, was not in
favor of developing that mine; but, nonetheless, I'm convinced
by scientific data that it wouldn't have ruined Yellowstone.
But, there was no amount of scientific study, no amount of
convincing that could have convinced many people in Wyoming
that it would not hurt Yellowstone and that it would be okay.
So I guess what I'm--and you mentioned that there are private
property rights concerns here, as well.
So is that the situation, do you think, with the folks
along the shore to coast? Do you think that this study and the
results--say they came back and said it wouldn't hurt the
coast; it will hurt the coast more; they have vessels coming in
and out. Do you think that will be accepted by the people? Will
it really make any difference?
Mr. Goss. I think that is absolutely the nugget of the
issue. I think you sized it up very well. The answer is that we
are going to be confronted with making decisions. What we want
is there to be no losers and all winners in the process. I
believe that's possible. You are absolutely right about vessel
discharge. It is a huge problem in the Florida Straits, because
there's a lot of tonnage that goes up and down there and it
causes a lot of damage. As you know, we're in danger of losing
the coral reef for that and other reasons. And it's one of a
kind. There's no place else. Like you have scenery in your
state that is no place else, we have the stuff which is no
place else. The mangrove forest of Florida Bay and southwest
Florida and the Everglades is absolutely one of a kind on the
globe.
--------------
``. . . can you estimate what Florida's needs will be for
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the protection of the
Everglades and other sensitive areas, say, for the next five or
ten years?''
We are in the process of developing a comprehensive land
acquisition priority list for south Florida ecosystem
restoration in response to a request from Congressman Regula.
The Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water
Management District and Executive Office of the Governor are
working together to provide: (1) a list of all existing
conservation land acquisition lands acquired to date; (2) a
list of remaining lands needed; (3) an estimate of State and
Water Management District projected expenditures: and (4) an
estimate of unfunded needs. These lists should be finalized in
October and we will forward them to you and your Committee at
that time.
The State of Florida has an unprecedented conservation land
acquisition program. We have spent over $3 billion during the
last ten years to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in
Florida. Many of these acquisitions have been directed toward
lands that help conserve and manage the Federal trust lands in
Florida, particularly the greater Everglades ecosystem.
Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature approved a
successor program during the 1999 legislative session that will
allow this legacy of conservation land acquisition to continue
in Florida. We are poised to continue our outstanding
partnership with the Federal Government for many years to come.
And so we feel the responsibility to take care of it. It
happens to be in a place called Florida and there happens to be
a line built at the top of the peninsular and then there's some
other states after that. But, this really is a national
question, and I believe that the answer lies in saying, look,
we're going to set up a system and we're going to get facts, so
that when we sit down to debate these tough challenges and
decisions we have to make, we are going to make the decisions
that we have on the basis of fact.
Now, I'm not saying that everybody is going to get the same
message the whole time. But, right now, what we have is
interested parties, and there are several, putting their--how
do I say this--best foot forward all of the time and putting
your best foot forward sometimes doesn't give you the whole
picture to make a balanced decision. We are weighing private
property rights, no question about that. We are weighing the
wishes of the people, who live in Florida, their quality of
life type decisions. That's what politicians do and public
services therefore.
I agree with you on the state's rights issue. I think that
the sovereign State of Florida has a huge role in this, which
is why we've tried to set up this joint mechanism; but, I,
also, recognize that we're dealing with the waters of the
United States of America. So, we've tried to collar a way that
we can get all of these ingredients in one room, at the same
time, lock the door, and come out with a solution--an agreement
on how we are going to make the decisions on these challenges.
That's what this is designed to do. It's not meant to tilt the
playing field one way or the other.
I have personally seen oil spills in places where you
didn't know there are oil spills, because there wasn't much
quality there to start with. I have seen other places where oil
spills have wiped out acres of mangrove forest. In my own
district, we do ship oil; we have oil. We're not hypocrites. We
turn on our car. We run air conditioning in the summer, heat in
the winter--infrequently heat in the winter, I would say. But,
we need oil, too, and we recognize that the oil and gas people
have a totally legitimate interest in this. We recognize the
national security interest in this.
I know very well, and to try to sum this up, that if you
think of this as a zoning war--a zoning fight, what you want to
do is you want to make sure that the neighborhood is happy and
that you've honored all of the private property rights that are
involved, the other rights of people. That's a tough decision.
I would suggest that it is possible to exploit oil and gas off
of the coast of Florida in some areas at a minimal risk, if
it's done in a certain way. I think that's possible. I don't
think there's any doubt. I think the gentleman from Louisiana
could testify to that and others from Mississippi and Texas and
so forth.
We have a different kind of risk situation in some areas.
That needs to be taken definitely into account. Additionally,
we happen to have an economy in the state that is based on
tourism, natural environment. We sell eco-tourism. We sell it
for our growth, our quality of life. We're one of the fastest
growing states in the union. People do not want to trade off
the shore side facilities for what I will call, say, oil and
gas refinery hardware, railroad trains.
Now, some places have made that decision and they've done
it. Galveston always comes to mind, in my discussions.
Galveston is a place where they made that decision and that's
what they do in Galveston. We've made the decision in Florida
to try and do it the other way. I'm not so sure that we can't
accommodate both; but, I won't know until we weigh all of the
facts and then we take those facts to the public forum. But, I
will say, as in any public forum, when you're making what I
will call a political decision, the people who make those land
use decisions, who are the local people, not the Federal
Government, that's still going to be a factor. And I think it
should be a factor based on fact, not on what I will call the
psychology of the crowd and the audience at a given moment,
because I think it will be fairer if we do it in fact. That's
what we're trying to do here.
Mrs. Cubin. And there is no question that I agree. I'm a
chemist by training and I agree that sound science is
predictable and it's absolutely what we need to base our
decisions on, not just for the short term, but for the long
term as well. It's the politicizing of issues that have caused
problems for your state and for my state, as well.
I guess I don't have any other questions. Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Just a brief question, because the
discussion is very interesting, in the sense that we're trying
to provide more scientific input into the process. But, at some
point in time, you know, all the science in the world, even the
information about oil spills being generated more by vessel
traffic than by oil and gas exploration, doesn't make the
difference, in terms of how people feel about it.
And so, you know, as you've outlined--and I'm very
sympathetic to that. Where I come from, we have mangrove swamps
and we have coral reef and they're all very fragile
environments and they're easily disturbed and they could be
disturbed by silt from, you know, construction sites and a
whole host of things. So, I'm very sympathetic to the idea of
trying to protect those. And sometimes, in the case of oil and
gas exploration, for an economy that's driven by tourism or an
economy that's driven by the visitor industry, the prospect of
having oil and gas exploration is something that, you know,
maybe other states or other areas will make a decision based on
what they think is in their best interest. But, I think
clearly, in your case, you--both you and the gentleman from the
state government there have made the case that--that it seems
like your intent is to--is to forestall the possibility of
having these leases.
So, my question to you is just a brief one, for my
edification, why is--why are the moratoria that are in place,
why are they inadequate, in order to get the desired result?
Mr. Goss. If you accept the desired results that I outlined
in my comments, which is to reach a way to make a decision,
rather than to keep temporizing and keep pushing this
discussion down the road--because we are holding in abeyance
right now by this moratorium--it is a moratorium--we're holding
in abeyance both a final decision on private property rights,
where there has been real dollar investment in excess of $100
million, and there is an expectation of realizing something on
that investment, properly so by the private property owners. On
the other side of that issue is a very strong sentiment in the
State of Florida, which votes for its elected officials on
issues like this, that they will protect the economy, the
quality life, and the shoreline. And there is a dispute over
what is the best use of the land and where the most risk
exists. And I suggest that the moratorium doesn't get us close
to an answer. It just keeps pushing the answer down the road
every year.
The second part of that is perhaps some year, somebody will
forget to do the moratorium, then the issue is open and
exploitable; or for some year for some other reason that
appropriations bill will get lost in the shuffle. And perish
the thought we would ever have an appropriations bill not
passed; it never would happen, would it? So, there are some
dangers in the situation. Additionally, the only other real
protection is these Executive Orders and Executive Orders come
and go with presidents, so that's not much protection.
And the real reason is there are varying degrees of risk in
various parts of the Florida estuarine and water system and
waterway system. There probably are some places in Florida that
could accommodate some type of activity. I think that's an
important part of the discussion. I think that, as I say, the
land use decisions and so forth by the state laws and the
Federal laws come to play in that. All of that should be
weighed in this process.
I'm not saying that the present protection isn't adequate,
I think it is adequate; I'm just saying it's not the final
solution. And I think that one of the responsibilities we have
here, instead of parking a problem, is to try and resolve it.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I would have to say that coming from
the kind of jurisdiction that I come from, I certainly find
very attractive the notion that you ought to build in more
local input into the process of making a decision about what is
normally thought of as Federal assets. But, certainly, it
remains an open question, because your legislation is really
provocative, in the sense that it's really offering a change in
the way we make decisions about public lands and about not just
OCS.
--------------
``We were talking about expiration for hydrocarbon fuel
source today on the floor, the recent discussion about global
climate change issues, and the C022 on the
atmosphere. Does your department have any role or interest in
that issue? Is your department interested in evaluating the
fications of decisions like this on C02 and global
climate changes? Is that in your portfolio at all?''
There are a number of outstanding questions concerning
emissions and global warming. For instance, is it real? What
can be done about it if it is real? How urgent should our
concern be? What will it cost? Will it affect U.S. industry
disproportionately to less developed countries? How will our
defensive position militarily be affected if we aggressively
scale back our emissions from energy consumption? Will the
effects be catastrophic? Is public health a concern? These
questions, of course, lead to more.
Most of these issues are best addressed at the national
level. In Florida we are aware of the technical issues involved
in trying to determine the rate of global warming if indeed it
exists. We will stay up to date on findings as they occur
regarding this hypothesis. National Energy policy will drive
this issue to such a degree that individual states will
probably be only small players in the resolution of the
question. Florida is ready to do its part in solving the
problem once it is defined and would do so aggressively if
needed.1But in a sense, you know, we're reaching over into
what--what the Chairlady had referred to earlier about all the
other things that she so capably does at every hearing, brings
in every issue related to Wyoming, no matter what the topic.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. And so, I've seen this at work a number of
times. But, it really is a question of how we deal with what
are thought of as national assets and how we build that process
in. So, it's provocative in that sense. And for myself, I find
it very engaging, because I think from where I come from,
people don't have enough input into federal assets. Thank you.
Mr. Goss. May I just add a further word to that. I agree
with your premise that we have national assets and national
matters here. We, also, have basically got local zoning, and
it's that interplay. In this case, I will tell you we have all
three levels of government, local, state, and federal
government working together and we have all political parties,
at least all known political parties in agreement on this. So,
I will--as I stated in my answer to your----
Mr. Underwood. Even wrestlers are in that?
Mr. Goss. To the Chair, well, then, as I stated, I will not
make a guarantee that the decision will be made on a factual
basis. I'm saying, however, the conversation ought to start on
a factual basis, rather than on the basis of putting your best
foot forward as an interested party.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. John?
Mr. John. I'll just be very brief. Mr. Goss, most of the
area--the outlying waterways around the panhandle of Florida,
in your state, are under some sort of moratorium today, from
the Georgia-Florida line, all the way around the Keys, up to
Alabama; is that correct?
Mr. Goss. There are varying degrees of protection; but the
answer is essentially, yes, there is some regulation.
Mr. John. And I guess your consideration is on the eastern
Gulf side, with some of the leases that are proposed within
this five-year plan of MMS. Is that kind of where you're going
with your bill or is it all encompassing all along the shore?
Mr. Goss. It is to deal with all of the Florida waters and
offshore waters off of the Florida waters. The degree of
scientific data that we want is to reveal what I think we are
going to find, is that there are vast differences between the
waters off, say, Jacksonville, Florida, in the north Atlantic
cut, and let's say for Jefferson, in the very sensitive lower
estuarine Keys. I think there are obvious differences. What we
want to do is not put a one size fits all regulation. What we
want to do is be able to have a scientific basis for making
decisions about proposals, because most of these proposals, as
you know, come in to do oil and gas exploration in area
specific, a place you can put with the GPS out there on a
chart.
So what we're trying to do is to figure out what the risk
factors are in all these places, what the land based
association and support system would be. And as you know in
north Florida, we have one case where they're drilling in north
Florida or they're proposing to drill, I'm not sure what the
active status is, but they're actually planning to pipeline it
into an adjacent state, in order to avoid the onshore
facilities question. So the answer is, we want to do the whole
thing of Florida, because the Florida delegation is together on
this and we've cut out Florida because it's unique. But, we are
no way saying that this is only a Florida question. There are
other states that have that, too, and I've testified before
this Subcommittee on that part before with others from other
states. We put this bill in for Florida, because we feel that
we have a solution here we want to try with this joint task
force. And I represent southwest Florida, but all 23 members of
the Florida delegation and both senators and the governor's
office are four square behind what we're trying to do. This is
not my bill, it's our bill.
Mr. John. In the five-year program plan, does it mandate
any kind of these type of studies? There's nothing out there
ongoing now that would satisfy what you're trying to do?
Mr. Goss. Well, I'll let Mr. Joyner respond to part of
that; but as you've heard in his testimony, we haven't quite
gotten there. There have been what I will call a series of
different sort of think tank approaches to this. What we
haven't done is given them, I guess, sort of a force of
seriousness by bringing them all together and completing them
and saying we all agree that this is pretty much the factual
situation. What we have is somebody hiring somebody to go out
and say, don't you think that the situation is about this,
couldn't you find data to support that; somebody else with a
different approach to it would say, don't you think we can go
out and find data to do this. Now, I could find data to go all
kinds of different ways. What I would really like to do is to
get one basic credible setup joint group to give us data that
they all agree is good data and then we'll play with the data
when we get there, then we'll go to our zoning boards and have
our town meetings. But, it's getting that base data is what
we're trying to and provide protection while we're doing it.
Mr. John. Okay.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. I'm going to pass, Madame Chair.
Mrs. Cubin. I found my other question for you, Porter, and
then I do have some for Mr. Joyner, and, actually, this is a
two-part statement, question, whatever. The National Research
Council does seem to have recommended that socioeconomic
studies be conducted, and you addressed that in your testimony,
as well. I want to make two points about that. Number one, is
we have been trying to get socioeconomic input in environmental
impact statements and environmental assessment studies, when we
are trying to permit, for example, large gas field in Wyoming,
and those issues have not been allowed to be entered into the
environmental impact statement and the environmental assessment
statements. And so, I was--if it's right for Florida, it ought
to be right for everyone else. And so, I hope that we can work
together to impress upon our colleagues that the socioeconomic
impact of decisions that are made truly is something that
should be considered when these decisions are made.
Mr. Goss. I would be the first to testify that I think
homosapiens is a legitimate part of the environment and I
think, generally speaking, that ought to be considered. It may
not be entirely relevant in every situation, I don't know.
Mrs. Cubin. Exactly.
Mr. Goss. But, I would certainly say it ought to be on the
checklist.
Mrs. Cubin. Then the other aspect of that, the socio-
economic study I wanted to bring up was I would like to be sure
that included in that study is a balancing of Florida's future
energy needs. I understand there's going to--I mean, everyone
would agree that the energy needs for Florida is going to
increase through the following years, and so the supply of
energy versus the demand. And then, I, also, would like to--the
study to include the socioeconomic impact of the likelihood of
oil spills from vessels, as opposed to platforms and pipelines,
that--that those should be factors, I think, in that study.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Goss. I would absolutely agree. I think we want the
total risk. I am looking at all aspects of this. Part of this
discussion that we've gone into many times is if you do shore
side facilities, what does that do to air quality, for
instance. It's a fair question, if you're going to do shore
side facilities; if you're not, not a very relevant question.
Perhaps the best answer I can give you to the question is,
I think that the State of Louisiana has shown me conclusively
that there is a way to extract oil and gas viably and also
benefit the environment, at the same time. And I would take you
to the rainy preserve in southern Louisiana, where they produce
oil and gas and they, also, have a bird sanctuary. It is
probably the single lesson that says, you don't have to have
losers; everybody can win if you do this right.
Mrs. Cubin. That's right; I think that's right.
Mr. Joyner, my staff recently read that there's a large
desalinization plant that has been proposed for the Tampa Bay
region for fresh water needs that the state will have. Do you
have any idea what kind of electricity demand there will be for
that plant?
Mr. Joyner. It's my understanding--and I've got to admit,
Congressman, I have been with the department for about six
months now, so, quite honestly, I'm still learning where things
are. But, yes, we do have an Office of Air that I think
certainly would be very interested in that. What I'd like to be
able to do is just go back--Howard Rhodes is the gentleman,
very good reputation, in Florida that handles those issues. I'd
like to go back to him and just express your comments.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I appreciate that and I'll give you a
card and you let me know what you're doing.
Mr. Joyner. Please do.
Mr. Inslee. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Joyner. Thanks.
Mrs. Cubin. The Chair thanks both of you for being here and
for your wonderful testimony. And then if we have some written
questions, I hope that we'll be able to get answers from you on
those. So, thank you, very much.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Madame Chair, very much. We are indeed
grateful for the opportunity.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
At this time, we'll call the second panel forward: Mr. Walt
Rosenbusch, Director of the Minerals Management Service; Mr.
Jay Hakes, Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration.
Mr. Rosenbusch, would you like to begin?
STATEMENTS OF WALT ROSENBUSCH, DIRECTOR OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; JAY HAKES,
ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Rosenbusch. Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. It's a pleasure to be here today to testify
on H.R. 33. This is my first time to testify before the
Subcommittee and just recently been appointed Director of The
Minerals Management Service. However, I do know from past
experience with the Department of Interior and the Assistant
Secretary's office, that the Subcommittee takes a very active
interest in the activities of the Minerals Management Service.
And accordingly, I look forward to working closely with members
of the Committee.
Prior to discussing the department's view on H.R. 33, I'd
like to take just a moment to highlight some of the important
facts concerning the OCS program. From an energy standpoint,
the OCS produces about 22 percent and 27 percent, respectively,
of our nation's domestic oil and natural gas. And by 2001, oil
and gas production on a daily basis is expected to increase
from 3.3 million barrels of oil equivalent in 1995 to as much
as 4.9 million barrels of oil equivalent, on a per-day basis.
From an economic standpoint, MMS collects on average over four
billion dollars per year in mineral revenues and over three
billion of that total comes from the OCS. These monies go to
the Federal treasury to help pay for Federal programs, but a
significant majority of these revenues are shared with various
onshore and coastal states. Finally, a portion of OCS revenues,
as already been mentioned, goes to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, a program that benefits all Americans.
Historically, OCS revenues have provided over 90 percent of the
funding to the LWCF.
When this administration assumed management of the OCS
program in 1993, I think it's fair to say that it had
substantial problems facing it. There were congressional
moratoria on leasing and development activities, ongoing breach
of contract litigation by lessees with certain leases, and
unresolved issues associated with existing leases in various
areas that demanded our attention. However, six years later,
many of those controversies have been resolved or substantial
progress has been made towards resolving them. I believe the
main reason the department has been able to move the OCS
program forward is because we recognized early on that conflict
resolution would have to be a high priority and that the best
way to proceed would be to listen very carefully to our
stakeholders.
Our conflict resolution efforts were primarily made up of
two components. The first was to endorse the existing annual
congressional moratoria that were in effect. We did this in
order to assure our stakeholders that the status quo would be
maintained while discussions ensued on the direction of the OCS
program.
The second major component of our conflict resolution
effort was the development of the OCS five-year program for the
year 1997 to 2002. That program was guided by three principles:
one, consensus-based decision-making; two, science-based
decision-making; and three, focusing on the use of natural
gases and environmentally preferred fuel. That program was
developed with significant stakeholder participation and
collaboration, and for the first time since annual moratoria
were enacted, we now have an OCS five-year program that does
not propose to lease in areas where opposition and controversy
led to those restrictions. In addition, in June, 1998, the
President issued a directive that certain OCS area be withdrawn
from future leasing consideration until at least the year 2012.
These areas had been under annual leasing moratoria and are not
part of the department's current five-year program.
From this short history, I believe you can see that we are
serious about working with and listening to our stakeholders
and basing our decisions on good science, and I believe our
track record over the past six years has borne out this fact.
With regards to our views on H.R. 33, the department has
carefully reviewed the proposed bill, and while we appreciate
the intent of the legislation to protect Florida's coast, we
have concerns regarding the moratoria provisions and
environmental research requirements of the bill. Some of the
provisions would at best be duplicative. Moreover, there are
other provisions of the bill that could be detrimental to the
program. Instead of the approach advocated by H.R. 33, we
believe that the current laws, processes, and programs already
in place to address the OCS leasing and development related
issues are working and should be continued. The OCS decision-
making process is one that is comprehensive and well thought
out. At each step of that process, there are substantial and
meaningful ways for stakeholders to have their concerns
addressed.
I'd like to conclude my remarks by saying that in
retrospect, I believe that the past six years have taught us
valuable lessons with respect to the OCS program. The most
notable lesson is that it is absolutely critical for the
program to be based on consensus, the willingness to listen to
our constituents, and to working in a collaborative fashion to
resolve issues; otherwise, we are bound to repeat the mistakes
of the past. I believe the program we now have in place takes
those lessons to heart. Furthermore, we remain committed to
building on those efforts and to involving our stakeholders at
every step of the process.
Madame Chairman, this concludes my oral remarks. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenbusch follows:]
Statement of Hon. Walt Rosenbusch, Director, Minerals Management
Service, United States Department of the Interior
Madam Chairman, and Members of the Subcommitee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 33--a bill to
impose restrictions and requirements on the leasing and
development of certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands
offshore Florida. However, before addressing the specifics of
H.R. 33, I would like to begin by highlighting some important
facts concerning the OCS program.
First, the OCS program is a major source of energy for the
Nation, currently providing about 22 percent of our total
domestic production of oil and 27 percent of our production of
natural gas. Hand in hand with this much needed energy
production, the program generates substantial national and
regional economic benefits. Those benefits come in the form of
bonus, rent, and royalty payments to the Federal Treasury
(almost $6 billion in 1998 and over $125 billion (to date)--a
portion of which is distributed to coastal States under section
8(g) of the OCS Lands Act--as well as income, local jobs, and
taxes generated by petroleum companies and a host of
manufacturers and other firms located throughout the country.
Furthermore, OCS revenues are the major funding source for
both the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and, as of
last year, the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)--programs that
benefit all Americans. To date, over $19.7 billion and $3
billion have gone into the LWCF and HPF, respectively. The OCS
program has an excellent safety and environmental record, and
it produces a large quantity of natural gas, which is the most
environmentally preferred form of fossil fuel.
These benefits notwithstanding, the OCS program has been
the subject of conflict, controversy, and--ultimately--
moratoria that have been in effect for many years for certain
areas of the nation's coast. The history of moratoria is well
documented in two reports produced by the Minerals Management
Advisory Board-Moving Beyond Conflict to Consensus (April 1993)
and Environmental Studies in OCS Areas Under Moratoria:
Findings and Recommendations (May 1997). These reports were
previously provided to the Committee. The former had a
significant influence on the Department's development of its
management approach, and the latter we use in managing our OCS
Environmental Studies program.
THE DEPARTMENT'S APPROACH TO MANAGING THE OCS PROGRAM
When this Administration assumed management of the OCS
program in 1993, congressional moratoria were in effect for
both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico, and the North Aleutian Basin off Alaska. There were
lease sales scheduled in the Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of
Mexico areas under leasing moratoria; there were drilling
restrictions on previously issued leases in the southeastern
part of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, in the North Aleutian
Basin, and off North Carolina; and there was breach-of-
contract/takings litigation that had been filed by the
companies holding those leases. There also were existing leases
in the areas subject to leasing moratoria off the Florida
Panhandle and off California that demanded our attention; and
there were proposed lease sales off Alaska that were generating
controversy.
The Department believed that while the OCS program held
great potential, it had become mired in controversies because
it had been insufficiently attentive to the public's desires.
Therefore, the Department embarked on a strategy designed to
decrease the controversy so that conflicts and concerns could
be addressed in a more rational atmosphere. This approach
placed a high priority on conflict resolution and consulting
with--and listening very carefully to--the OCS program's
various stakeholders.
Endorsing Annual Congressional Moratoria
The first approach we used was to endorse the existing
annual congressional moratoria as a way to assure the
stakeholders that the status quo would be maintained while
discussions ensued. We felt that it was extremely important to
ensure that no new leasing occur in areas where we were
attempting to resolve intense disputes concerning already
existing leases. In retrospect, the annual moratoria that were
in effect proved to be a very useful tool that enabled us to:
settle litigation concerning the leases in the North
Aleutian Basin and in the southeastern part of the Eastern Gulf
of Mexico, which resulted in their relinquishment;
settle litigation on the leases off North Carolina,
which resulted in the relinquishment of 32 leases while
preserving the Manteo Unit for possible exploration;
cancel proposed lease sales in the Atlantic and in the
Eastern Gulf off Florida that were precluded by the moratoria,
thereby allowing us and the stakeholders to concentrate on
resolving issues related to potential exploration and
development of remaining leases; and
focus our efforts off California on the possible
development of existing leases without the distractions that
proposals for new leasing would engender.
In short, the annual moratoria provisions and the actions we were
able to take helped us begin building trust with our constituents and
stakeholders and make strides in putting the OCS program on firmer
footing in those controversial areas.
At the same time, we took under careful consideration the sales off
Alaska that had been proposed in the OCS 5-Year Program for 1992-1997
that had been approved by the previous Administration. After consulting
with stakeholders, we decided to:
cancel sales in the Chukchi Sea, Hope Basin, Gulf of
Alaska, and St. George Basin Planning Areas based on low
industry interest and some concerns for other resources that
were expressed by native groups and others; and
proceed carefully and deliberately in the presale
processes for Beaufort Sea Sale 144 and Cook Inlet Sale 149,
which resulted in successfully conducting those two sales after
a 5-year hiatus in Alaska OCS leasing.
Our decisions resulting in the cancellation of three proposed
Alaska sales--as well as cancellation of Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of
Mexico sales--were made with the view that this Administration would
have the opportunity to formulate its own 5-year program (covering the
1997-2002 timeframe). In developing that program, we would consult
further with stakeholders to reach consensus on any future sale
proposals for those areas and others.
Developing an OCS 5-Year Program by Consensus
The second approach we used to address past controversies with the
OCS program was to develop an OCS 5-Year Program for 1997-2002 that was
based not only on the substantive and procedural requirements of
section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, but also on three general guiding
principles endorsed by the President and the Secretary-consensus-based
decisionmaking, science-based decisionmaking, and the use of natural
gas as an environmentally preferred fuel. We consulted with and
listened to stakeholders from start to finish in the 2-year preparation
process.
As a result, the current OCS 5-Year Program is one that was
developed by consensus and through the active participation of our
various stakeholders. As such, it has allowed us to focus our energies
on constructively discussing and resolving specific issues related to
areas to be leased, as opposed to debating which areas are appropriate
to even consider for lease.
The President's June 1998 OCS Directive
The third approach the Administration used to address stakeholder
concerns regarding OCS leasing and development was to administratively
withdraw certain OCS areas from further leasing consideration for a
period of time. Specifically, in June 1998, the President issued a
directive to the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw from leasing
consideration until at least 2012 OCS areas located offshore the east
and west coasts of the United States, the majority of the Eastern Gulf
of Mexico, and the North Aleutian Basin offshore Alaska. In general,
the areas adminstratively withdrawn were the same areas that had been
under annual congressional moratoria for many years and where
controversies or concerns still remained. Further, the President's
directive also permanently prohibited future OCS leasing activity in
marine sanctuaries.
As a result of the actions I have just discussed, the OCS program
now reflects stakeholder desires with respect to the role the program
should play in meeting the Nation's energy needs. Furthermore, it is
important to note that the current OCS 5-Year Program, the President's
June 1998 OCS directive, and annual congressional moratoria are in
harmony; i.e., all areas prohibited from leasing consideration in the
Department's annual appropriations legislation are excluded from
leasing consideration in the Department's 5-Year Program and are
administratively withdrawn from future consideration until 2012. Of
note, the Department requested, and the Administration included in the
President's FY 2000 Budget, the areas under leasing moratoria in the
Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-277) be
continued in Fiscal Year 2000.
PROVISIONS OF H.R. 33
With respect to OCS leasing, exploration, and development
activities offshore the State of Florida, H.R. 33 proposes to----
prohibit leasing and preleasing activities offshore
Florida at least until after the expiration of the period
covered by the next OCS 5-Year Program (ie; until 2012), and
permanently prohibit leasing activities in areas in the Eastern
Gulf south of 26 degrees N. Latitude and east of 86 degrees W.
Longitude;
extend the prelease and leasing prohibition even
further until (1) all environmental research, assessment and
studies called for in the bill are completed and peer-reviewed;
and (2) the Secretary prepares a report certifying that he has
adequate information to carry out his duties under the OCS
Lands Act with a ``minimal level of uncertainty;''
permanently prohibit the approval of any exploration
or production activities in the Eastern Gulf south of 26
degrees N. Latitude and east of 86 degrees W. Longitude, and
for other areas offshore Florida--to prohibit the approval of
any permit or exploration or production activity until (1) all
environmental research, assessments and studies called for in
the bill are completed and peer-reviewed; and (2) the Secretary
prepares a report certifying that he has adequate information
to carry out his duties under the OCS Lands Act with a
``minimal level of uncertainty;'' and establish a joint
Federal-State Task Force to supervise the peer-review of all
research and to review the report prepared by the Secretary
certifying that he has adequate information available to carry
out his duties under the OCSLA.
These provisions would apply to three OCS planning areas--that part
of the South Atlantic Planning Area located offshore Florida; the
Straits of Florida Planning Area; and that part of the Eastern Gulf
Planning Area located offshore Florida. However, there is no OCS
leasing proposed in the 1997-2002 OCS 5-Year Program for either of the
first two areas, and likewise, there are no existing OCS leases in
these areas. Therefore, the only area affected by the legislation would
be the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. There is a small area
located 15 miles offshore Alabama and more than 100 miles offshore
Florida that is proposed for possible lease in late 2001, and there are
approximately 110 existing leases located in that part of the Eastern
Gulf affected by the provisions of the bill.
VIEWS ON H.R. 33
We have carefully reviewed the provisions of H.R. 33 in light of
current law, the President's OCS directive, and the Department's
efforts to address past controversies with the OCS program. We
appreciate the intent of the bill--to protect Florida's coast--but we
have concerns regarding the effect that the moratoria provisions and
the environmental research requirements will have on the OCS program.
Proposed Leasing Moratorium in H.R. 33
With regard to the leasing restrictions proposed in the bill, we
would again note that the current OCS 5-year Oil and Gas Leasing
Program for 1997-2002 is a consensus-based program which proposes only
a limited area for potential lease in 2001 in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico and no leasing in other OCS areas offshore Florida. In the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the area for possible lease is located
primarily offshore Alabama and more than 100 miles off the coast of
Florida. During development of the current OCS 5-Year Program, both the
States of Florida and Alabama agreed to allow this area to be
considered for possible lease.
Furthermore, the President's June 1998 OCS directive prohibits the
Department until at least 2012 from considering leasing areas offshore
Florida that are located outside the limited area in the Eastern Gulf
of Mexico previously agreed to by the States of Florida and Alabama.
Even if an area offshore Florida were to be considered for possible
leasing after 2012, it is important to note that there is a
comprehensive set of laws in place to guide that decisionmaking
process. I have attached a chart to my testimony that outlines that
process from the development of an OCS 5-Year Program all the way
through the review and approval process for an OCS Development and
Production Plan. From this chart, it is readily apparent that at each
point of the OCS process, decisions would be subjected to a detailed
planning and consultation process as outlined in the OCS Lands Act as
well as requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act and
numerous other environmental statutes. Also, in the case of proposed
lease sales, exploration plans, and development plans, preparation of a
section 307 consistency determination under the Coastal Zone Management
Act would also be required. Therefore, there are many points in the
current OCS leasing process that would ensure that State concerns are
substantively addressed prior to any final decisions regarding an
activity.
Finally, and as I previously mentioned, through the annual
appropriations process as well as the President's OCS directive, the
Department has endorsed a leasing prohibition offshore Florida for
areas lying outside mutually acceptable areas contained in the OCS 5-
Year Program for 1997-2002 in order to work cooperatively with the
State to resolve issues of concern and obviate the need for long-term
moratoria. H.R. 33 could be counterproductive to continued dialogue
with affected constituencies and may diminish the motivation to
continue the difficult process of building trust with all affected
parties.
Proposed Drilling Moratorium in H.R. 33
H.R. 33 also contains language that would impose a drilling
moratorium offshore Florida for a period of time that is tied to the
completion of certain research, assessments and studies. The Department
has concerns with this provision. First, it could undermine the
statutory and regulatory processes in place to consider proposals for
industry operations on leases with already-approved exploration or
production plans. Second, it could undermine the ongoing consultation
and dialogue necessary with the State of Florida and local governments
to determine the most appropriate ways to explore for or develop
existing OCS leases.
Most importantly, imposition of a drilling moratorium would have an
immediate impact on the approximately 110 existing leases located in
the Eastern Gulf offshore Florida. In turn, the drilling moratorium
could have severe economic implications on lessees and operators and
could very likely set the stage for litigation for a potential buyback
of those leases. Although none of these leases are yet producing, many
have been explored, several have ``producible'' wells, and in at least
one instance, the lessees are pursuing efforts to develop a significant
natural gas find on their leases. The value of these existing leases
would be significant, and the potential liability to the American
taxpayer could be sustantial.
In Conoco v. United States, decided in 1996, language similar to
that contained in H.R. 33 was addressed by the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The Court found that the Federal Government was liable
for breach of contract and the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
Although the case was subsequently reversed on other grounds, it is
true that similar language spawned expensive and time-consuming
litigation for both sides. Therefore, if H.R. 33 is enacted with these
restrictions on the process of approving and permitting exploration and
other drilling activities, it could set the stage for extensive
litigation and possible buyback.
Proposed Environmental Research Requirements of H.R. 33
MMS has concerns with the section 4 environmental research
requirements since they do not take into account the comprehensive and
open process MMS uses to determine what environmental research is
necessary for a given OCS area. Further, the bill fails to give
adequate recognition to the extensive suite of environmental studies
MMS has developed with regard to areas offshore Florida--particularly
in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. In addition, section 4 does not take
into account the extensive peer review process that is already in place
to ensure the integrity of OCS environmental research.
Finally, although section 4 references the need to conduct studies
as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC), it does not take
into account the recommendations coming out its review of the MMS
Environmental Studies Program. The NRC provided final guidance in its
report to MMS--Asessment of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf
Environmental Studies Program: IV Lessons and Opportunities, NRC,
1993--and MMS has relied heavily on its recommendations and guidance as
it considers environmental studies needs for the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico.
Listed below is a status of of our environmental research in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico and an overview of NRC guidance vis-a-vis
various provisions of the bill.
(1.) Studies required in H.R. 33.
Section 4 outlines certain specific studies that should be
conducted by MMS and also requires an unlimited number of additional,
unspecified studies that may be requested by the Governor of Florida or
the Joint Task Force (as proposed in section 5 of the bill).
In fact, the socioeconomic study called for in section 4(l)(A)
should be completed in late 1999 and is entitled ``Socioeconomic
Baseline and Projections for Selected Florida Panhandle Communities.''
The ecosystem study called for in section 4(l)(B) is scheduled to be
under-taken in Fiscal Year 2001. In conjunction with that study, MMS
plans to hold a workshop this October in Florida to delineate the scope
of the study. Finally, the physical oceanography studies called for in
section 4(l)(C) are currently underway and scheduled for completion in
the near future.
With regard to the NRC studies called for in section 4(l)(D), it
should be noted that the NRC report referenced in the bill discussed
the adequacy of information with respect to the southwestern Florida
area and indicated that the physical oceanographic information was
marginal for that area. However, no existing leases remain in this area
and, this is part of the Eastern Gulf that is both under annual
congressional moratoria and the President's June 1998 OCS directive
regarding new leasing.
However, MMS has added a considerable amount of information to our
knowledge of ocean circulation in the Eastern Gulf, a matter of concern
expressed in the NRC report. We are nearing completion of several
projects employing anchored instruments, satellite images, surface
drifting Buoys, and computer models to look at how ocean currents move
in this area. In particular, we are studying the interaction, if any,
between the nearshore currents and eddies from the head of DeSoto
Canyon. Although, to date, there have been only natural gas discoveries
in the area, this knowledge will help us better understand what might
happen if an oil spill did occur. These efforts will be reviewed at the
October workshop to determine what additional research should be
considered. Additionally, new meteorological information will also help
us see if there may be any potential effects from the emissions of OCS
activities.
We have also improved our understanding of the biological and
coastal resources in the eastern Gulf. A recently completed field study
of whales in this area is providing new information on where these
animals can be found. In a cooperative effort, MMS and the State of
Florida have just finished updating information on a wide variety of
coastal resources for storage on a geographic information system to aid
the State and Federal government in assessing potential impacts to
these resources.
Our understanding of the human environment in this area has also
improved. Baseline information regarding the socioeconomic conditions
of selected Florida panhandle communities has recently been completed
and is being examined to project how these conditions may change in the
future. Several new studies that have either just started or are
planned to start in the near future should also give us a better
understanding of the Florida socioeconomic environment.
In summary, through these studies MMS has addressed the issues
raised by the NRC report and has continued to identify new issues
through outreach programs and issue specific workshops to ensure that
decisions are based on the best available information.
(2.) Peer review of studies.
H.R. 33 proposes to require all research required by the bill to be
peer reviewed by qualified scientists who are not employed by the
Federal Government. MMS already has an available peer review mechanism
recognized by the NRC. In Report IV, the NRC strongly emphasized that
MMS should use the OCS Advisory Board Scientific Committee for advice
on environmental research. Scientific Committee members are
independent, nationally-recognized experts in the marine and social
sciences, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, and not employed
by the Federal Government. Most members have served on NRC committees
and other special ``peer review'' panels, and are very frank in giving
MMS advice in open, public meetings. Furthermore, the Scientific
Committee provides peer review on MMS research.
Therefore, the additional layer of peer review provided for in the
bill is not necessary to ensure quality science and, indeed, provides
no method to resolve conflicts that could occur from these two separate
reviews.
(3.) ``Minimizing Uncertainty'' Through Studies.
H.R. 33 would require the Secretary to certify that he has adequate
information available to carry out his duties under the OCS Lands Act
with a ``minimal level of uncertainty'' before approving leasing or
exploration/development activities. This requirement implies that the
only way to minimize uncertainty is by conducting additional research
and that all studies mentioned by the NRC must be completed. However,
in Report IV, the NRC stated that----
``it cannot--and should not--prescribe a detailed plan of
studies for the Environmental Studies Program. Because the
state of knowledge, budget constraints, and other factors
change continuously, this Committee can provide only broad
guidance on priorities based on its assessment of current
conditions.''
The MMS has followed the guidance from the NRC and is under the
oversight from its Scientific Committee in setting its research agenda,
as recommended by the NRC.
Further, the bill proposes that the Secretary be prohibited from
conducting any leasing or development activities until all assessments
specified in the bill are completed, peer reviewed, and approved. This
requirement could be interpreted to mean that all information,
including that needed for exploration and development activities, must
be completed and approved prior to even considering a leasing action.
This requirement would run counter to both recommendations by the NRC
and the environmental assessment process envisioned in NEPA.
The OCS program and NEPA both recognize that levels of
environmental information necessary to make the first decision (i.e.;
holding a lease sale) are not the same as those necessary to make a
decision on the placement of a platform. It would be literally
impossible to have all the information necessary to make decisions with
``a minimal level of uncertainty'' on the approval of an exploration or
development plan prior to the decision to hold a lease sale. Such
information is best gathered and assessed once the location and
specific circumstances of the proposed exploration or development
activity are known.
Finally, H.R. 33 also permits the Governor of Florida or the Task
Force to require ``any'' additional information to ``minimize
uncertainty.'' This provision would essentially give the Governor and
the Task Force a blank check to require any kind of study, or endless
numbers of studies, regardless of the applicability of that study to
OCS decisionmaking. In Report IV, the NRC stated--``The process of
deciding how much science is enough should be a process whereby
scientific knowledge provides to decision makers an assessment of
potential impacts and risks--including the range of uncertainty-
associated with an action. The response to scientific uncertainty need
not always be the commissioning of additional studies. Any decision
whether or not to conduct further studies should have a rational basis
that can be documented.''
The NEPA process provides the best approach to defining what the
real issues are with regard to a project and uses the ``scientific
knowledge'' method highlighted by the NRC to provide to decisionmakers
and the public an assessment of potential impacts and risks, including
uncertainty. For example, many of the deliberations by the NRC centered
on oil. But to date, only natural gas has been discovered in commercial
quantities in the Florida Panhandle area, and gas is expected to
comprise a significant portion of the hydrocarbon resources found in
that area. The development of natural gas can have quite different
impacts than oil. One would not need to know everything possible about
the effects of oil spills to develop gas fields. For development of a
gas field, the NEPA analysis would key on issues associated with
impacts from gas development.
CONCLUSION
In summary, while we appreciate the intent of the legislation, we
believe that the current consultative and environmental processes
already in place--along with the Administration's willingness to listen
carefully to its stakeholders and make decisions based on good
science--are the best way to proceed with the OCS program. As
experience has shown us, consideration of OCS areas to lease and
develop should be based firmly on science and consensus, or we are
bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. We believe we have made
significant strides in building public consensus concerning the OCS
program in +the past several years. Further, our Environmental Studies
program supports the NRC's recommendations regarding scientific
studies. These efforts should be allowed to continue.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. However, I will
be pleased to answer any questions Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1320.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1320.024
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you for your testimony. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Hakes.
STATEMENT OF JAY HAKES, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Mr. Hakes. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you, members
of the Committee for this opportunity to discuss the pattern of
energy consumption in the State of Florida. I would point out
that almost all of this information is available on the
Internet, so the Committee and, in fact, the general public all
over the country has easy access to it.
For today's hearing, I believe I can be very brief. Rather
than repeat what's available elsewhere, I would just like to
highlight a few major aspects of Florida's energy use. Florida
has grown rapidly to become the fourth most populous state in
the country, but it's profile of energy use differs in several
respects from the profile of the nation as a whole. Relative to
other states, Florida does not have a lot of heavy
manufacturing industries, which decreases its total need for
energy. On the other hand, Florida has long driving distances
and a large tourism industry, adding to the demand for
petroleum-based transportation fuels. And if we look at the
first chart that I brought with me, and it's also Chart 1 in
the written testimony, which I believe you have, you can see
that the red bar there, which reflects petroleum use, is by far
the biggest source of energy in Florida and more so on a
percentage basis than it is elsewhere.
The state uses relatively little natural gas or oil for
space heating, because of its mild winters, and it does have
heavy demand for air conditioning; therefore, these factors
increase the need for electricity, which is quite great in the
state. And if we look at the electricity generation chart, we
can see, again, that relative to the rest of the country,
petroleum plays a fairly big role. Petroleum, there again the
red bar, is 16 percent of electricity production in Florida.
Now, that's not the largest amount of electricity; but in the
rest of the nation, it averages about 2 or 3 percent of
electricity. Since the early 1970s, when we had a lot of
electricity coming from petroleum, today we have very little,
except for some places like Florida.
Florida's topography is very flat, as was mentioned by the
initial witness, which makes the potential for hydropower very
limited. And finally, Florida's population is likely to
continue to grow more rapidly than the nation as a whole. This
leads to the expectation that its energy consumption will also
rise faster than elsewhere. The amount of electricity used in
Florida, for example, is estimated by the Energy Information
Administration to increase about 2.2 percent a year, from 1997
to 2005.
These comments, I believe, cover the most salient points,
and I'd be glad, at the appropriate time, to answer any
questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hakes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1247.020
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, very much. I will start the
questioning with you, Mr. Hakes, I guess. Obviously, Florida's
consumption of energy will be increasing, as your testimony
said. So, how bad will it get from the energy deficiency
standpoint for Florida in the next decade or so, and factoring
in that desalinization plant at Tampa Bay, if that has been
done?
Mr. Hakes. Well, we have relatively few states in the
country that are major energy producers. You have Louisiana,
Texas, and Colorado. The West produces a lot of gas and oil.
But, I don't have a calculation of--any energy produced in
Florida, unless you consider nuclear production. There is some
limited gas and oil onshore. But, basically, its energy use
will continue to grow and, under current plans, the production
probably would not grow at all. It's not unique in that
respect. There are a number of states that are big consumers of
energy that don't produce much energy.
Mrs. Cubin. Yeah, that's absolutely true, but a lot of the
other states that don't produce a lot of energy don't have--go
off the shore 12 or 35 miles, where you can't even--wouldn't
even be able to see platform from land and have the potential
to produce that oil or gas in a safer fashion, I guess, than
having vessels bring oil in. So, that's the only thing I'm
trying to--trying to balance out somehow the needs and the
responsibilities.
Mr. Rosenbusch, welcome. This is your first opportunity to
testify in front of the Committee and you did an excellent job
and I----
Mr. Rosenbusch. I'll be sure to tell my mom, thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, I have to say that you were just the
model of decorum. We appreciate the intent of the bill to
protect Florida's state, but we have concerns. I mean, I can't
wait to hear you say this bill stinks or----
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. But can you further respond to Mr. Joyner's
testimony about the adequacy of environmental studies that need
to be done in the eastern Gulf planning area?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Yes, Madame Chairman, I'd be glad to. Just
to start off, to give us a backdrop to this, about $76 million
worth of envirnomental studies has either been completed or is
in the progress in the process of being completed right now
relative to Florida. The National Academy of Sciences and the
National Resource Council did make recommendations, in terms of
the necessity to perform additional studies, but I would also
suggest and state that they, said that those studies should be
related to specific--specific activities, as we move forward.
In other words, not all studies need to be completed up front
before you make any decision; Instead, the process that we have
in place right now accommodates the fact that there's going to
be science that's needed and that science will be determined
based upon what activity or action is being proposed, as
opposed to trying to do it all at at one time.
Mrs. Cubin. Just for my own edification, in addition to the
money spent on the studies already, how much sunk investment
costs are at stake in the eastern Gulf? I think that your
testimony referred to $90 million in bonus bids. But wouldn't a
buy out be substantially more expensive than that?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Yes, Madame Chairman, there would probably
be some other costs associated with that those leases. The $94
million is strictly just the----
Mrs. Cubin. Just the bonus?
Mr. Rosenbusch.[continuing] just the bonus. I would imagine
that a lessee would make a claim for other investments that may
have been made on that lease.
Mrs. Cubin. I think a key phrase in H.R. 33 is the term
``minimizing uncertainty.`` And as with many policy issues, a
point I want to make, what is the point of diminishing returns,
with respect to OCS leasing? Wouldn't the decision to allow
natural gas produced in the Gulf to be used for electric
generation, rather than barges and other vessels that would
come in full of crude oil and leak and what not? Wouldn't the
way to minimize uncertainty be to allow pipelines and plants
that would use natural gas for electric generation? I mean,
that seems to me like that would minimize uncertainty, which is
such a prevalent term in this legislation.
Mr. Rosenbusch. Madame Chairman, I appreciate that
question. It would--I guess in my own mind, be inappropriate
for me to second guess what the stakeholders and the citizens
of Florida consider to be an inappropriate activity. But, we
would certainly suggest that the process that we have in place
contemplates both the science that is needed and the concerns
of the citizens before any decision is made. Whether a platform
is considered more or less harmful is actually sometimes more
in the eye of the beholder.
Mrs. Cubin. One last question for you, Mr. Hakes. How do
you think Florida will likely meet the increased deficiency in
the needs that it has for electricity in the next five years?
Are natural gas fired combined cycle turbines the likeliest new
source, do you think?
Mr. Hakes. Yes. We believe that in most areas of the
country, that the gas fired plants are more economical than
their competitors, because of the lower capital cost, and I
believe that's also the case in Florida.
Mrs. Cubin. Do you know if there are any plans to build
pipelines to Florida or are there any pending construction
projects that you know about?
Mr. Hakes. There have been some expansions to the pipeline
capabilities into Florida and there has been public discussion
of substantially enlarging that pipeline capacity.
Mrs. Cubin. And so, you think that's where it will come
from then, from--see, that would be great for my state, if we
could send gas to Florida. But----
Mr. Hakes. We project nationally that the market for
natural gas will grow from about 22 trillion cubic feet now to
about 30 trillion cubic feet in about 2013, and that's, again,
because in most areas of the country, these gas fired electric
plants are so attractive economically.
Mrs. Cubin. They're cleaner. Yeah, of course, you know,
coal, too.
Well, thank you, very much. Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, very much, and Mr. Rosenbusch,
congratulations on your position. You did well today.
Basically, I wanted to kind of understand the impact of Mr.
Goss's bill. As I understand it, what would be the difference
between what exists in California today, in the manner in which
leases are dealt with, and the system that's being proposed by
Mr. Goss?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Today, the process that's in place for
California is the same process that we have in place for any
other area that's included in the five-year program, and that
is a process that incorporates the OCS Lands Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act,
working in tandem. That is a process where--at each step along
the way--whether it's in evaluating whether that acreage should
be included in a five-year program, all the way through to
ultimately where some activity, some specific action on a
lease, you look at whether it is consistent with local--and
state and concerns and Coastal Zone Management Act policies as
well. The process is not any different. It is the same.
In terms of the process is that is out there in California,
that is not what Mr. Goss is asking for in his legislation. I
believe what Mr. Goss is asking for for is something that's
different.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. What would be the net effect of
implementing Mr. Goss's, other than having additional studies?
Structurally, how would--you know, how would that either
facilitate or impede your work or how would that facilitate or
impede good public policy, in your estimation?
Mr. Rosenbusch. Our concerns, if I will, are that it would
impede the process that is currently in place, the process I
earlier discussed that incorporates the OCS LA, NEPA, and the
CZMA. That process allows for a continuing dialogue with than
affected state. Our concerns are that if Mr. Goss's
legislation, if becomes a public law, it would, if you will,
delay the dialogue--necessasary to identify concerns, and
identify cxoncerns and issues or until the end of 2012 or until
such time there is enough environmental information out there
to make a decision.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Thank you for those answers.
Mr. Hakes, how many--I'm trying to understand the impact of
these charts about whether Florida is energy self-sufficient.
How many states would you estimate are energy self-sufficient
or--how many states would you estimate?
Mr. Hakes. Well, I mean, clearly, Texas, Louisiana. I think
some of the western states might be; but, certainly, most of
them are not and the country certainly is not. We import most
of our oil now. And although the vast majority of gas is
domestic, we are importing an increasing share from Canada.
Mr. Underwood. Okay.
Mr. Hakes. I could probably calculate that for you, if you
would like that in the record. I just don't know it off the top
of my head.
Mr. Underwood. No, I'm just wondering whether the
importance of the charts is to show that Florida needs a
pipeline from Wyoming.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. Maybe not from Wyoming.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. John?
Mr. John. Mr. Underwood, if you wouldn't mind, I could
maybe give you some idea of states that are self-sufficient.
Over 80 percent of the oil and gas exploration in the OCS is
done right off the coast of my home state of Louisiana, so we
are a huge producer of oil and gas out in OCS.
Mr. Rosenberg, I--Rosenbusch, I'm sorry, I have seen some
conflicting numbers. As you are aware, there is a bipartisan
group of members of this Committee--there's a congressman
working on a pretty extensive, pretty wide sweeping outer
continental shelf revenue sharing piece of legislation--and
we've been basing it on some numbers and trying to build a
consensus. And, actually, it's going very, very well. I see in
your testimony, where you said that six billion dollars came
into the Federal treasury in 1998. We had done--yeah, in 1988.
Using some figures that we have been dealing with was four
billion that was given to us early on in the process and then,
of course, in the President's budget, we are now dealing with
2.875 or 2.825 or something like that, and that was based, from
what I understand, on about $14 oil.
Have you done any recalculations--now that the price albeit
a short term, but has definitely bumped up and is bumping up at
the $20 barrel or right underneath it, have you done any
recalculations on the total effect or the total receipts of
offshore oil and gas?
Mr. Rosenbusch. I believe we have updated our calculations.
Part of the confusion lies in fact that oftentimes we talk
amongst ourselves about total receipts that are collected by
Minerals Management Service and then, it could be only be
onshore receipts, or it could be OCS receipts. And so, I think
that our latest number is around $3 billion, but I would be
glad to provide any additional information that we have, in
terms of the latest numbers.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. John?
Mr. John. And I understand the volatility of that industry
and that market. It is a moving target and moves daily.
Also, I want to talk about the trends in the non-moratoria
areas of the OCS, with lease sales. Where do you see that
going, as far as its impact on the total amount of revenue? I
mean, is it increasing 5, 10 years down the road? Is it
decreasing, you know, with the technology and the offshore--and
the deep water that's--that's starting to develop today? Do you
see it increasing or decreasing?
Mr. Rosenbusch. In short, I'd see it increasing, but I
would have to say that probably--there are some caveats to that
and I would be glad to--and let me just sort of itemize a few
of those and then be glad to provide some additional
information for you.
For instance, the Gulf of Mexico has about, in terms of
deep water leasing, and the activity is going to--has gone from
1,000 leases now to 4,000 leases that are under lease in the
Gulf of Mexico. A lot of the production that we have--the
production increases that we're seeing today are actually from
leases that were let prior to the Deep Water Royalty Relief
Act. The new acreage that is under lease, that probably won't
be coming on line for another two or three years. And so, I
think that there are going to be some increases there, but
they're going to be--it will really depend upon, as you know,
the success of the exploration plan or the exploration effort,
as well as the market, what's available--what the price is, I
guess, basically, in terms of whether or not to move forward or
when to move forward on those--on that project.
Mr. John. And I guess being from Louisiana, we have chosen
to be a producing state and have benefited from all of the
economics of that industry, and other states have chosen to
stay out of that. And I guess my concern, not only as a state
legislature in Louisiana that served on the resources
Committee, but also up here in Congress, is that although we
get a lot of the benefits from it, I am very much concerned
about our domestic oil and gas industry, as a whole, in the
United States. And I don't--and shove to the side the economic
benefits of it, I see this, as one of the gentlemen mentioned
earlier, as a national security problem. And you look at it,
time and time again, and read history and read books about
military conflicts and what has brought people down and what
has brought--what has survived from the strongest countries,
and it is oil and gas--I mean, it is the gas industry. So, I am
very, very concerned about our industry and what we're doing
and what we are not doing to try to make sure that that's a
thriving industry, because importations, as we very well know,
we are addicted to the importation of the cheap oil, which is
great for a lot of folks, but we need to look at the big
picture.
And I guess my last question, as it relates to H.R. 33, do
you feel that your office and your department have the
appropriate resources and manpower to look at some of the data
and do the kinds of studies that H.R. 33 is trying to do in the
first place? I mean, obviously, H.R. 33 is wanting to buy some
time, because there are obvious differences in the water
bottoms of Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico, and the mouth of the
Mississippi, and the beautiful beaches in Florida. But tell us
a little bit--or if you could help me understand, does your
department do that now? Do they have the resources to do that
and how--would it just be a buying of time type thing, when we
may have that data and the resources to gather that?
Mr. Rosenbusch. To answer the first part of your question,
``yes,'' we do have the resources. That is part of our mandate
and a part of our budget request and appropriations that we get
each year. We use some of these funds to perform environmental
studies, on areas involved in pre-leasing activities or for
studies for an EIS associated with a specific activity that
being proposed, like a drilling permit or such.
Mr. John. Right.
Mr. Rosenbusch. So, I think we have those resources. But
that's not the entire question. I would simply state, in
response to your second part of the question, whether it's
extending the time or buying additional time, I would just say
that we believe that what's being proposed in H.R. 33 would be,
at best, a duplicative effort. We already have a process that
Congress has given us and that we have taken, at least in the
six years that this administration has been responsible for
management of the OCS, we have taken very seriously. We
understand that it requires a consensus effort as well as good
science. It's a deliberative and consultative process.
Mr. John. Thank you, very much.
Mrs. Cubin. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and
the members for their questions. The members may have some
additional written questions that they'll submit and we'd
appreciate--we'll keep the record open for those responses.
Thank you, very much.
Mr. Rosenbusch. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Hakes. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Now, the third panel, which is just one person,
Charlie Bedell, with Murphy Exploration and Production Company,
would please come forward. Welcome. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Bedell.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BEDELL, MURPHY EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION COMPANY, NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION;
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; U.S. OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION;
INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; DOMESTIC
PETROLEUM COUNCIL; NAD INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING
CONTRACTORS
Mr. Bedell. Thank you, Madame Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I'm very proud to be here today. I almost
hesitate to read the list of groups I'm representing. It will
take up most of my time, but it is the National Ocean
Industries Association, the American Petroleum Institute, U.S.
Oil and Gas Association, the Independent Petroleum Association
of America, the Domestic Petroleum Council, and the
International Association of Drilling Contractors. All these
groups have made substantial and valuable input and we thank
them all for helping us in the preparation of this testimony.
My name is Charles Bedell. I'm the Manager worldwide for
environmental regulatory compliance for Murphy Exploration and
Production Company in New Orleans, Louisiana. We understand
that the written testimony will be included in the record and
we have made some specific references in that testimony to
specific provisions of H.R. 33. And so, I would just like to
react, being the last person testifying here, to some of the
things that I've heard today and perhaps address a few
specifics.
What we're really talking about here today seems to be
communication, and the balancing, of Federal and state powers,
jurisdictions, responsibilities, things that aren't new or
applicable to just this subject, but which--I think have come
into pretty clear focus, as we've listened to the testimony
today. I'm really glad to hear some of the things that the
distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goss, has said, as he
introduced his bill and explained it. We're glad to see that he
sees that there is some possibility for actual accommodation
and that exploration and development activities, production
activities may, in fact, some day be able to go on in concord
with the State of Florida.
The other areas of agreement seem to be that Florida does
need energy and it's going to need increased electrical,
capacity, and that natural gas is the fuel of choice, to fuel
that expansion. And, of course, that's a national expansion, a
national need, as you pointed out.
And what we have trend is. The real basis of this problem
is how do we really communicate together on these things. As in
the warden in Cool Hand Luke said, what we have here is a
failure to communicate, and I guess we really do,
unfortunately. On the one hand, we have citizens, who are
living along the coast. They have their present lifestyle and
they enjoy it, rightly so. Then maybe groups will get formed
when they perceive a threat and they become a little more
militant and the word ``fight'' begins to creep into the
conversations between all the stakeholders.
And on the other side, you have people like myself, who
work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year,
and do it for a whole career and they're all through the oil
industry with the real dedication to bring about environmental
safety and compliance with regulations. The MMS testimony, I
think, clearly shows that we have had a very, very good record
and our operations are safe and they protect the environment.
And, actually, studies are beginning to document the fact that,
as far as red fish and some their polulation has approximately
doubled what they would be, if it wansn't for the productuction
platforms that exist now in the Gulf of Mexico.
So, we have, on the other side, folks who are worried
that--I think there's a group called Gulf Coast Environmental
Defense that said that fisheries will be closed down and they
said they'd be closed down for two seasons after drilling
begins, and, of course, we've had 36 wells drilled already--off
Florida already exploration wells. There was no opposition to
the environmental impact study that has already been done in
Florida for the Destin Dome Project. And so, we have a
situation where scientific information has piled up. Since I've
been involved in this for about 25 years, I speak with some
authority, when I say that there's probably more scientific
information out there than people can effectively deal with.
Back in 1979 through 1982, I was a member of the Gulf of
Mexico Regional Technical Advisory Committee that the
Department of Interior had, at the time, under the OCS Lands
Act. And when we looked at the budget for MMS, one of our
initial recommendations was that these new things called
computers be used to try to come up with common formats and to
expedite the access of the scientific community and the
decision makers in government to studies that were available.
So, we don't see that adding a new group of people, a committee
to review and ask for more studies, that is found in this bill,
will lead to any real resolution of the problem.
We agree with MMS that the present regulatory situation is
one that's adequate, and that it has involved the states. And
if I had brought along--for instance, on that Destin Dome 56
project, the application for the permit to go forward with
development it would cover this tabletop and includes four
million dollars worth of scientific studies and surveys, things
that go beyond the requirements of the regulations, due to the
fact that our operator, Chevron, made specific contacts with
the State of Florida and with EPA, with all agencies involved,
so that we could proceed and get facts that they wanted before
we had conflict. And, unfortunately, we haven't been able to
avoid that.
So, we urge that the Subcommittee reject this bill, at this
time, and give the present system a continued opportunity to
function and to allow us to try to deal with the issues of who
can offshore development through that system. With the
assistance of MMS and their increasingly active role in public
education and through groups like NEED, The National Energy
EEducation Developement Project, and others, we think that this
may be able to work, hopefully, in the end. Thank you, again,
for the opportunity to appear today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bedell follows:]
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you for being here. I want to follow up
on one of Mr. Joyner's statements regarding the National
Research Council's call for further studies. Could you, please,
describe for me the range and scope, you know just short, of
the studies that you and your partners have caused to be
performed on the Destin Dome project?
Mr. Bedell. Yes, I'd be happy to supply the Subcommittee
with the precise list and can do that in pretty short order,
hopefully. One of the things was photo documentation of the
bottom. There have been a lot of comments about the difference
between the eastern part of the Gulf and the western, and I'm
sure there are some. My undergraduate training is in biology,
ecology, and animal behavior, but I went wrong and went to law
school, I guess. I think that there aren't as many differences
between these areas, as some might like to believe.
We did shoot, I think--and please don't hold me exactly to
this--but around 1,000 miles of video tape with a remote
operated vehicle going along the bottom and saw a lot of mud, a
lot of sand, and very little life. There's a lot better quality
and a lot more life around platforms, frankly, than there is on
the bottom of the area of the Dustin Dome 56 unit. This is very
expensive work. It was not even required. Socioeconomic studies
are also involved. Everything that's been raised as an issue of
concern, and legitimately so by the people of Florida and
through Congressman Goss, all these things are being addressed.
And sometimes one feels like that we're saying something, but
there's nobody there listening at the other end.
Mrs. Cubin. The lights on, but nobody is home.
Mr. Bedell. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Cubin. Would you tell me just a little bit more about
the project. I think it's a dry glass--dry gas play, isn't it?
Mr. Bedell. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Cubin. Is there potential to get this natural gas to
Florida in a relatively direct way?
Mr. Bedell. Well, absolutely. As I believe the gentleman
from Florida stated, we, in the initial planning process, had
talked to folks along the coast. But there was apprehension
about the method for getting the gas to shore, they didn't want
it to cross the State of Florida or go in across their beaches.
Now, I have to add that during the time when when I was the
minority counsel for the Ad Hoc Select Committee on the Outer
Continental Shelf here in the House, we went to Scotland and
did some field hearings of what was going on there, as far as
North Sea development in the mid-'70s. We were taken to a golf
course, where huge pipelines came ashore underground. We talked
to farmers and they had huge pipelines going through under
their pastures and there wasn't any problem.
I would like to add, also, that there is a document that
the Committee should probably take note of with regard to the
studies that the gentleman from Florida referred to. The
National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences
studies. It is an MMS document called ``Cumulative Effects.''
This is the latest version. It was published in 1997. It covers
1992 to 1994. It shows the cumulative effects of the Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Natural Gas Resource Management
Program and in it how the MMS directly addressed those requests
for additional information and the alleged shortcomings of the
system at the time when the National Research Council made its
recommendations. It shows the degree to which the MMS has tried
to address those needs, and I think successfully so.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I thank
the staff for all of their hard work. We look forward to seeing
you again. As I said earlier, the record will be held open for
written responses that any Committee members might have. And so
if there's no further business, this Committee hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
information and literature on other prairie wildlife species as well,
to determine their status.
The black-tailed prairie dog is the cornerstone of the
network of prairie wildlife species. The prairie dog colonies
are home or otherwise provide food and cover to as many as 150
other species in the short-grass and mixed-grass prairie
ecosystem. Unfortunately, many of the colonies of prairie dogs
that remain in these ecosystems are fragmented and cover only a
small acreage. These small ``islands'' of prairie dogs that are
so commonly seen along the Front Range simply do not support
the kind of matrix of wildlife species that rely on prairie dog
colonies for survival.
We are heading for a ``train wreck'' through the loss of
species diversity associated with prairie dog colonies and
within the short-grass and mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. The
National Wildlife Federation is taking steps to help stop this
train wreck from occurring.
Prairie Dogs Are a Threatened Species
In July 1998, the National Wildlife Federation filed a
petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the
black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. Since then, we have been working
closely with the states to develop state management strategies
for black-tailed prairie dogs, and trying to put a stop to
poisoning of prairie dogs on Federal lands. In addition, the
National Wildlife Federation is taking action to secure a home
for prairie dogs and prairie wildlife on the National
Grasslands.
information and literature on other prairie wildlife species as well,
to determine their status.
The black-tailed prairie dog is the cornerstone of the
network of prairie wildlife species. The prairie dog colonies
are home or otherwise provide food and cover to as many as 150
other species in the short-grass and mixed-grass prairie
ecosystem. Unfortunately, many of the colonies of prairie dogs
that remain in these ecosystems are fragmented and cover only a
small acreage. These small ``islands'' of prairie dogs that are
so commonly seen along the Front Range simply do not support
the kind of matrix of wildlife species that rely on prairie dog
colonies for survival.
We are heading for a ``train wreck'' through the loss of
species diversity associated with prairie dog colonies and
within the short-grass and mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. The
National Wildlife Federation is taking steps to help stop this
train wreck from occurring.
Prairie Dogs Are a Threatened Species
In July 1998, the National Wildlife Federation filed a
petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the
black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. Since then, we have been working
closely with the states to develop state management strategies
for black-tailed prairie dogs, and trying to put a stop to
poisoning of prairie dogs on Federal lands. In addition, the
National Wildlife Federation is taking action to secure a home
for prairie dogs and prairie wildlife on the National
Grasslands.
I., State Management Strategies
National Wildlife Federation staff sat down with
representatives from Wyoming, South Dakota and Colorado in
January 1999 to begin exploring ideas for a coordinated state
strategy to address prairie dog management in the ten states
with black tailed prairie dogs. In March of this year, the
state of Colorado hosted a meeting of the ten prairie dog
states to start a formal dialogue on interstate coordination
for prairie dogs. The result of this effort is an Interstate
Strategy for the Management of Prairie Dogs, which was
submitted to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies for their review in July 1999 at their meeting in
Durango.
We are expecting this Strategy to be favorably received,
and will be working with individual states, including Wyoming
and Colorado, to develop state-specific management plans. By
the end of this year, or early in 2000, we hope to have
comprehensive management plans in place in all the states with
black-tailed prairie dog habitat.
I will use my allotted time to highlight some of those
successes, and to discuss the challenges we are facing in the
future in the restoration and protection of prairie wildlife
species.
Bald Eagle Recovery
As a symbol of our Nation and a spiritual icon for Native
Americans throughout the West, the restoration of populations
of the bald eagle is particularly note-worthy. When the
Endangered Species Act was enacted, the species of bald eagles
had suffered severe declines due to habitat loss and pesticide
use. This summer, the Secretary of the Interior announced that
the bald eagle populations in the country have recovered to the
point that the eagle has been removed from the Federal
Endangered Species list. Due to the work of countless
individuals and the assistance of many government agencies at
the Federal, state and tribal, and local levels, the bald eagle
once again soars above many areas in the United States.
Wolf Recovery
Another important symbol of freedom and strength is the
gray wolf. These animals were virtually exterminated from the
lower 48 states through both government and private control
programs. When the Endangered Species Act was passed, wolves
were one of the original species listed. America's hearts were
lifted as the pen door was opened in 1995, and the first wolves
were released by the Secretary of the Interior into the
Yellowstone ecosystem. Today, in Yellowstone and elsewhere, we
are seeing the results of two decades of efforts to recover the
wolf populations, with animals expanding their range in
Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and even into Oregon. Some day, we hope
to have populations of wolves roaming in Colorado as well,
which was part of the historic range for the species.
The success story with wolves means that we will soon be
able to delist the wolves from the Endangered Species Act in
the Rocky Mountain West. As a first step, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will soon propose down-listing wolves from
their present endangered classification to a classification as
a threatened species. This action will help put the natural
populations of wolves that are expanding in the West on the
same footing as the experimental populations of wolves in
Yellowstone Park and Idaho and will pave the way for total de-
listing early in the next century.
The National Wildlife Federation is working with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service on these efforts and anticipates
strongly supporting the down-listing proposal. However, we
still need to work with the states to come to grips with wolf
management and develop a program for each state with wolf
populations.
------
Statement of Coalition for Sustainable Resources, Inc.
(CSR) is a Colorado nonprofit corporation which was formed
for the purpose of encouraging the prompt recovery of species
designated as threatened or endangered under the Federal
Endangered Species Act, using sound scientific, technical, and
legal means, and in a manner which avoids unnecessary
interference with private property rights.
CSR is very concerned that the proposed recovery programs
for the listed threatened and endangered species in the Platte
River Basin will interfere with private property rights and
fail to recover the endangered species, primarily because of
U.S. Forest Service management practices on the national
forests at the headwaters of the Platte River. Because of these
concerns, CSR submits the attached written comments and
exhibits to the Committee for inclusion in the printed hearing
record.
Sincerely,
Kurt Bucholz, Vice President,
Coalition for Sustainable Resources, Inc.
* * * * * * *
Summary
The production of high-quality water from forested
watersheds is dependent upon healthy forests. Reduced water
yield is an early symptom of forests that are losing diversity
due to aging stands. Later symptoms of an unhealthy forest
(which often degrade water quality) include increasing
mortality from insects, disease, and blowdowns, in addition to
the increasing frequency of catastrophic fires. Historic U.S.
Forest Service management practices have significantly
decreased water production in the Platte watershed. Continuing
reductions in water yield caused by USFS management practices
jeopardize the continued existence of downstream endangered and
threatened species in Nebraska and undermine recovery program
efforts to achieve target flow goals established by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service.
FOREST COVER AND STREAMFLOW
From 30 to almost 75 percent of the annual precipitation
that falls upon the forested headwaters of the Platte River is
consumed by mature forest vegetation through the complex
processes of evapo-transpiration. Much has been learned about
these processes from research in forest hydrology. Simply put,
dense forest cover results in more evapo-transpiration, lower
levels of soil moisture, with less water available for
streamflow (Leaf, 1999a). More than 80 years of watershed
research throughout the United States, much of which is
specifically oriented toward the West, has demonstrated that
timber harvest, or vegetation removal, reduces net evapo-
transpiration and results in increased streamflow. Studies have
shown similar responses occur following deforestation due to
insect epidemics and fire (Troendle, 1998). The amount of
increased streamflow created can be accurately estimated by the
USFS-developed WRENSS handbook procedure.
As trees reoccupy a site after logging or natural
disturbances such as fire, blowdown, and/or insects, water use
increases with time until the conditions of maximum water use
(complete hydrologic utilization) of a fully occupied forest
are reestablished. Results from the Fraser Experimental Forest
show that lodgepole pine in the subalpine zone reaches complete
hydrologic utilization in about 80 years, and spruce/fir in a
little over 100 years. Aspen reaches complete hydrologic
utilization in about 30 years (Leaf, 1999a).
HISTORIC BACKGROUND
A century ago, many forests on the public domain were
ravaged by fire and unregulated logging. Water spilling off the
denuded and fire-glazed watersheds created damaging floods in
the spring and after storms, followed by periods of extremely
low flows later in the season. Those flow patterns interfered
with agriculture, commerce, and prosperity.
Fear arose that forest lands might soon disappear, leaving
the country with a shortage of both timber and healthy
watersheds. Congress responded by passing the Organic
Administration Act of 1897, which outlined the primary purposes
of the national forests as (1) securing favorable conditions of
water flows, and (2) furnishing a continuous supply of timber
the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States
(USvN, 1978).
The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 provided
additional direction. This act is ``supplemental to, but not in
derogation of'' the Organic Act (USvNM, 1978; Steen, 1976 at
page 307). It authorizes the Forest Service to manage for
range, recreation, wildlife, fish, and other purposes in
addition to, but not in place of, management for the primary
timber and water responsibilities for which the national
forests were established.
The forested headwaters of the Platte River experienced
large-scale disturbance events prior to the time they were
added to the national forest system. Early records from Larimer
County, Colorado (1886) and the USDA Bureau of Forestry (1904)
suggest that 60 percent of northern Colorado's forests had been
recently disturbed and consisted of seedlings, saplings, or
were still black from recent fires (USFS, 1994). As a result of
those disturbances, forests of a century ago in the Platte
basin had many large openings and contained a large proportion
of young timber stands.
Prior to World War II, the Forest Service sold a modest
amount of timber while allowing the previously disturbed areas
to restock. Harvest increased during and after WW II, and
remained fairly constant for the next four decades. A steady
decline in the rate of harvest has been experienced since the
early 1990s. Timber harvest has always been less than the rate
of growth. For example, harvest on the Medicine Bow National
Forest averaged about 23 percent of the current growth rate
until 1950, 43 percent from 1951 to 1984, and is currently only
12 percent of the growth rate (USFS, 1985 at 111-57; USFS, 1998
at Page 36).
Harvesting at far less than the rate of growth while
suppressing fire, insects, and disease has led to serious
overstocking that is increasingly being recognized by experts
in the field. Former Regional Forester Elizabeth Estill made
the following statement during a 1997 address to the Colorado
Legislature's Joint Committee on Agriculture and Natural
Resources:
``We are growing much more wood than we are harvesting,''
Estill said. ``Our forests are heavily stocked--many in excess
of natural levels--and (at) high risk for disturbances like
fire and insects.'' (Estill, 1997).
Dave Blackford, former Renewable Resources Group Leader of the
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, commented on stand age and
size at a 1995 public meeting in Saratoga, Wyoming:
The USFS was then asked what the age of the medicine Bow was
and if there was a decrease in timber due to a lack of growth.
Blackford said the answer would surprise most people. ``The
stands in both the Medicine Bow and Routt are older than they
have ever been and bigger than they've ever been,'' Blackford
said. ``The reason is that for the last 100 years we have made
every effort to control fires and insects.''(Blackford, 1995).
Dr. Denny Lynch of the Colorado State University College of Natural
Resources gave the following testimony to the United States House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health on March 18,
1997:
Studies of paired photographs taken at the turn of the century and
more recently, consistently suggest that forest areas have recovered
and even increased substantially . . . . In short, today's forests seem
to be at the edge or outside the range of what we expect for the normal
conditions, or what ecologists refer to as the ``1range of natural
variability.'' . . . When forest canopies close and rain or snow is
evaporated back into the atmosphere before reaching the forest floor,
we lose valuable water supplies (Lynch, 1997).
As forest stocking levels have increased to the edge or outside the
range of natural variability, water yield from those forests has
inevitably decreased to the edge or outside the range of natural
variability.
National forests are over stocked with over-aged timber. While
experts recognize this problem, USFS has taken no corrective steps to
remedy the situation. Instead, the problem has been compounded by USFS
management decisions to reduce timber harvest.
As the forest continues to grow, individual forest communities will
gradually move into the more mature structural stages. This maturation
will be accompanied by an increase in crown cover . . . . 61 percent of
the forested lands are mature, and the percentage of forested land in
mature condition is projected to increase under all alternatives.
(USFS, 1997 at 3-89, 3-111).
The Platte Basin Forests are not unique in regard to overstocked
conditions due to an inadequate level of timber harvesting. Based on
current harvest levels, it is estimated about .4 percent of the
forested area in the Central/Southern Rocky Mountains is altered by
timber harvest in a 10 year period.
At this rate it would take about 200 years to disturb 8 percent of
the forested landscape, and 2500 years to disturb all of it (USFS,
1999).
History and timber inventory data show that half or more of the
forested watershed in the Platte basin had been recently disturbed
prior to establishment of the national forests. The disturbed areas
have been reoccupied by forest while under USFS stewardship, and that
forest has steadily grown from the stage of minimum water use toward
the stage of maximum water use. A recent analysis of stand age and
stocking levels on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, combined
with an analysis of historic gaging station records, led to the
conclusion that the 1945-1996 yield from national forest lands above
Saratoga, Wyoming was 116,000 acre feet per year less than the yield
experienced during the 1904-1944 period (Leaf, 1999a).
The present harvest rate on the Medicine Bow-Routt has decreased to
less than a third of the harvest rate of the previous four decades, so
for every acre harvested there are more than two previously harvested
acres being reoccupied by trees that are growing toward complete
hydrologic utilization and maximum water use. It is estimated that the
yield upstream of Saratoga, Wyoming will decrease another 16,500 acre
feet per year over the next 50 years if present management policy
continues (Leaf, 1999b).
Other methods were considered but would cause unacceptable
environmental damage. For example, allowing wildfires to burn
and regenerate forested areas has historically been
unacceptable because of the smoke that pollutes the air,
sediment that pollutes the waters, and the complete altering of
the Forestenvironment that results from wildfires. (USFS, 1985
at 11-44).
However, the probability of fire events that would mimic early
conditions are remote since agricultural uses in the lower
valley areas and social acceptance of large free running fire
have and will continue to influence wildfire suppression.
(USFS, 1997 at D-64).
Because fire cannot be allowed to return to its historic
levels, forest age and density will always remain above
historic levels (and water yield below historic levels), unless
USFS intervenes and actively manages the vegetative cover on
national forest lands.
DOWNSTREAM ENDANGERED SPECIES
The whooping crane, piping plover, interior least tern, and pallid
sturgeon have been listed as a threatened or endangered species
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, and Critical Habitat has been
designated for protection in the Central Platte Region of Nebraska. The
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been designated for protection in the
Central Patte Region of Nebraska. The U.S. Fisg & Wildlife Service has
determined that an additional 238,000 acre feet per year of water, over
and above the existing flows, is necessary to meet target flows
established for the listed speices in the Central Platte Region.
Virtually all of the water avialable to the Platte is generated from
snowmelt on densely forested Federal land, most of which is controlled
by the USDA, Forest Service (Leaf, 1999a).Total gaged yield is some 2.5
million acre feet per year and consumptive requirements are about 1.5
million acre feet per year, leaving an annual flow of about a million
acre feet through the Critical Habitat in Central Nebraska.
Various forest plans for the Routt, Medicine Bow, and Arapaho/
Roosevelt National Forests, which straddle the continental divide,
state that water yield from those Forests could be increased by
approximately 400,000 acre feet per year., without degrading water
quality or increasing flood peaks, by the implementation of vegetative
and snow management programs. A substantial portion of this water would
accrue to the Platte River, and the remainder would accrue to the
Colorado River Basin above the critical habitat designated for the
Colorado River endangered fish species. A moderate water yield
management scenario would increase water yield in the Platte Basin by
249,000 acre feet per year by patch cutting 50 percent of USFS lands
classed as tentatively suitable for timber harvest over the next 50
years, but does not include cloud seeding, snowfencing, or reentry of
stands for thinning (Leaf, 1999a). Leaf (1999c) has shown that a
significant portion of water generated by forest management practices
will arrive at the Critical Habitat without interfering with the
existing system of water rights administration. It is clear that
restoration of water yield to historic levels from national forest
watersheds would provide most, if not all, of the additional water
necessary to meet target flows at the Critical Habitat.
USFS ACTION AND INACTION
The U.S. Forest Service is required by both the Organic Act of 1897
and the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 to maintain watersheds
in a condition of favorable flow. The Endangered Species Act requires
each Federal agency to insure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species. Section
7(a)(1) of the ESA imposes on USFS an affirmative obligation to utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened
species.
USFS promptly used the downstream threatened and endangered species
as justification to require bypass flows or mitigation at the time of
permit renewal for water diversion facilities located on national
forest lands. In one case, USFS concluded that annual evaporative water
depletions of 0.7 acre feet off a pond located on the Arapaho-Roosevelt
National Forest would, unless mitigated, harm the downstream endangered
species and their habitat.
USFS also concluded that the cumulative effects of small depletions
from ponds and spring developments for livestock, and wells for cabins,
campgrounds and work centers, harm the downstream endangered species
and their habitat. Under an interagency agreement, USFS paid $95,000 to
the Fish & Wildlife Service to mitigate the calculated 504 acre feet of
annual small depletions to the Platte Basin.
While USFS has addressed the effects of small depletions on the
downstream listed species, it has ignored the huge depletions caused by
its management practices. The agency refutes its own science and three-
quarters of a century of gage records and states that there has been no
significant decline in water yield in the Upper North Platte over the
last 80 years. (USFS, 1997, Comment Response Report at 403).
Older forest plan revisions followed NFMA regulations and offered a
wide range of alternatives, including one that emphasized water yield.
Recent plan revisions have not offered an alternative to increase water
yield, and the management prescription for increased water yield has
been dropped.
The Routt NF has recently adopted unrealistic and misleading
baseline water yields that are apparently based on the yield from a
mature forest that is in the stage of complete hydrologic utilization.
Considering water yield from a forest that consists entirely of mature
stands as a baseline is as reasonable as expecting all the people in
Colorado to be over the age of 50.
Instead of providing water for the downstream listed species, USFS
is using those species as a tool to gain additional control over
privately-owned water diversions located on national forest lands. It
is clear that the Federal agencies wish to ignore their own research
and legal obligations, and instead place the burden of recovering the
listed species on the backs of resource users.
CONCLUSION
Forest Service research shows that a watershed maintained in a
condition of favorable flow will have enough forest cover to prevent
floods, yet will have openings to catch snow and promote runoff. At the
same time, the forest must not be allowed to become so old or dense as
to invite catastrophic stand replacement and subsequent watershed
damage. The Organic Act directs the Forest Service to maintain those
favorable conditions by removing excess fuel as wood products.
Forests in the Platte watershed have grown old and dense under USFS
stewardship and show signs of forest health problems in addition to
conditions of unfavorable flow. Infestations of mountain pine beetles
are increasing and an outbreak of spruce bark beetle seems likely after
a 14,000 acre blowdown north of Steamboat Springs. Fires are becoming
larger, more difficult to control, and are causing more damage. The
May, 1996 Buffalo Creek fire southwest of Denver burned 10,000 acres of
dense pine, claimed two lives, and has cost the City of Denver millions
of dollars due to damage from sedimentation.
The major purpose of vegetation treatment on the Forest is to
create and maintain healthy, diverse forest communities. A healthy,
diverse forest is more attractive for recreation use and scenic
quality; provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species; and
assures a steady flow of water and wood products for the use of society
. . . . (USFS, 1984 at Preface i).
The dangerous buildup of forest fuels is an urgent problem in
Platte watersheds. USFS and state foresters have warned that a 2,500-
square-mile swath from north of Fort Collins to south of Colorado
Springs is ripe for an Oakland-sized disaster (Oulton, 1996). A multi-
resource vegetation management program could easily be designed that
would both increase water yield and reduce fuel loads. Prescribed fire
and wildfire suppression costs would be greatly reduced, a very
significant economic benefit, if such a program were implemented.
In addition, the economic value of increased water yield averages
from 6 to 10 times the value of timber products generated by watershed
management (Gosnell et. al, 1987; Brown and Harding, 1987). Water added
to the North Platte by watershed management would be at the upper end
of that value range because of the many efficient hydroelectric
generating facilities in that river system. A vegetation management
program designed to increase water yield and improve forest health
would maximize net public benefits.
Instead of maintaining the watershed in a condition of favorable
flow and providing water for citizens, USFS is depleting the river and
causing the private sector to cover its depletions. The states of
Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado are diligently working on a recovery
program for listed species in the Platte Basin, but their efforts to
achieve the target flows required by the Fish & Wildlife Service are
doomed to failure as long as flows from national forest lands at the
headwaters continue to decrease. It is time for USFS to obey the
Organic Act, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, and the Endangered
Species Act and join the recovery program.