Opinion ID: 398884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Specificity of the Program.

Text: 65 The leasing program designates 1983's proposed lease sale 73 and 1984's proposed lease sale 80 as simply California. Petitioners contend that this designation violates the requirement of section 18(a) that the leasing program indicate the location of leasing activity as precisely as possible. Petitioners point out that California has 1100 miles of coastline, consisting of a largely rural, undeveloped coast in the northern and central parts of the state and a highly urbanized coast in the southern part. Because of the great diversity in the environmental and socioeconomic characteristics of these areas, as recognized by the final environmental impact statement prepared in connection with the program, 64 petitioners argue that the Secretary must identify the location of these two proposed sales with greater specificity. They note that greater precision is possible, because the Secretary designated the 1981 and 1982 proposed sales as taking place in either Central and Northern California or Southern California. 65 66 The Secretary concedes that it was indeed possible to make a more limited area designation for sales 73 and 80. 66 He asserts, however, that a more precise designation would not have served national energy needs, for it would have deprived him of the flexibility to assess at a later date which areas off California should be opened for leasing in 1983 and 1984. The Secretary also notes that the program's scheduling of proposed lease sales for simply the Gulf of Mexico, an area which encompasses more territory than the designation California, has not been challenged as violative of section 18(a). 67 We turn first, as we must, to the language of the statute, the most important manifestation of Congressional intent. 67 It unambiguously directs the Secretary to specify the location of leasing activity as precisely as possible. Although this language implicitly recognizes that absolute precision is unattainable at the program stage, it also reflects that Congress intended the Secretary to strive to achieve that goal to the extent he can at the program stage. As the Secretary acknowledges, 68 section 18(a)'s specificity requirement serves to notify state and local governments and other affected or interested groups of impending OCS activities off their shores in order to enable them to prepare and plan for its arrival and accompanying dislocations. Although the Secretary argues that the use of unnecessarily expansive area designations does not interfere with this purpose because such designations provide notice to every person located therein, we find this argument unpersuasive. First, the very breadth of the designation diminishes the possibility that any particular locality will be affected, and reduces the significance of any notice accordingly. Second, use of unnecessarily broad area designations may actually hinder participation and planning by affected entities, since they may be unable or unwilling to devote their limited resources to participation and planning on the basis of a signal so broad and undifferentiated that it may, in the end, portend no impact on their locality at all. Third, this argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would sanction a leasing program consisting of a schedule of proposed lease sales designated as merely Atlantic, Pacific, Alaska, and Gulf of Mexico. While these designations may indeed, in some sense, place the entire nation on notice; they hardly satisfy the requirement that the location of leasing activity be specified as precisely as possible. 68 Regarding the Secretary's expressed need for future flexibility, if he presently concludes that a basis therefor must currently be established, he should at this time designate additional leasing areas as precisely as present information supports. 69 We need not attempt to define today, however, the degree of exactitude compelled by section 18(a). It is enough to decide this case that the Secretary concedes greater specificity is possible, and has employed greater specificity in designating the other proposed sales scheduled for the waters off California. Sales 73 and 80 should be identified with commensurate precision. 70