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

Heading: Consistency with the Principle of Sections 18(a)(2).

Text: 71 Petitioners contend that the Secretary failed to prepare the leasing program in a manner consistent with the principle of section 18(a)(2). Before we can treat this argument in detail, however, we must first determine the precise manner in which section 18(a)(2) applies to the preparation of a leasing program. 72 As noted above, section 18(a) states that the leasing program shall be prepared ... in a manner consistent with the ( ) principle ( ) (that): 73 .... 74 (2) Timing and location of exploration, development, and production of oil and gas among the oil- and gas-bearing physiographic regions of the outer Continental Shelf shall be based on a consideration of (the following eight factors).  69 75 Petitioners argue that this language poses two related duties upon the Secretary in developing a leasing program; first, he must fully consider the eight factors listed in section 18(a)(2), and second, he must actually base the leasing program on the result of his consideration of these factors. In other words, the factors listed in section 18(a)(2) are matters which the Secretary must address at the leasing program stage, and are matters which the Secretary must factor into his decision-making process when drawing up the leasing program. 76 The Secretary takes a different view of section 18(a)(2)'s relevance at the program stage. He notes that section 18(a)(2) speaks of the timing and location of exploration, development, and production, and not the timing and location of proposed lease sales. Exploration, development, and production, the Secretary points out, are activities which occur during future stages of OCS exploitation, after a leasing program has been developed. Since section 18 only requires that the leasing program be prepared in a manner consistent with the principle that these future activities be based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in section 18(a)(2), the Secretary concludes that he has an obligation, at the program stage, only 77 to consider all of the factors enumerated in Section 18(a), to the extent that probative information exists now. Many of the elements, however, have viability only in connection with later stages of OCS activities. Thus his obligation now is to assure that his leasing program permits sufficient and proper consideration of those factors at their appropriate time in the future. 78 At the time of the leasing schedule, therefore, it is important to identify and consider the enumerated issues. This enables the Secretary to determine which, if any, factors present an absolute impediment to scheduling an area; which, if any, require particular studies or adjustments that would warrant placement of the area on the schedule later; and which, if any, depend on highly variable or speculative matters which are best addressed at a specific future time. 70 79 We conclude that Congress intended the Secretary to consider all factors listed in section 18(a)(2) in developing the leasing program, and did not envision the deferral thereof until some later date. We also conclude that the Secretary must base the leasing program upon the result of his consideration of these factors. 80 The legislative history of section 18 speaks quite clearly to both these points. For example, the House Committee Report explains: 81 In determining the timing and location of future activities in the various geographic regions, the leasing program should consider the existing characteristics of such regions, and the need to share developmental benefits and risks among the various regions, the location of these regions with respect to the needs of the various regional markets, the locations of the regions with respect of other uses of sea and seabed, the interest of developers in a particular area.... the environmental nature of the various OCS areas, and any relevant baseline or predictive information. 82 In addition, the Secretary is to consider the views of affected states as to any relevant law, goals or policies which they have identified specifically and as to the effect of any approved coastal zone management program. 71 83 In addition, the Conference Report provides: Considerations 84 The House amendment includes among the considerations for a leasing program, the sufficiency of resources including equipment and capital to assure exploitation expeditiously. The Senate bill contains no comparable provision. The House receded and the conference report contains no such provision. 85 The House amendment includes among the considerations for a leasing program, the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of different areas. The Senate bill contains no comparable provision. The conference report is the same as the House amendment. 86 The House amendment includes among the consideration(s) for a leasing program the policies and plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Senate bill contains no comparable provision. The conference report follows the House amendment and contains no such specific provision as it is included within the consideration of laws, goals, and policies of affected States. 72 87 The language of section 18(a)(2) also supports this interpretation, in that the factors specified in section 18(a)(2) are of such a nature that, practically, they can be fully analyzed only at the program stage. For example, section 18(a)(2)(B) requires consideration of an equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions, 73 and section 18(a)(2)(G) mandates consideration of the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the different areas of the outer Continental Shelf. 74 These factors by their very terms require the Secretary to engage in a comparative analysis, based on existing information, of the various OCS regions, and to strike an equitable allocation of benefits and risks among the various regions. This sort of analysis is one that the Secretary logically must undertake when he is considering the various regions at the one and the same time; namely, at the program stage. When a decision is being made or a particular lease sale, or a particular exploration, development or production plan, the focus of the inquiry is on the propriety of that particular lease sale or plan. 75 The Secretary failed to explain how he can determine whether his entire nationwide schedule of proposed lease sales strikes an equitable balance among the various OCS regions in the context of a decision on the placement of a particular exploratory well. 88 Under these circumstances, we think it reasonable to conclude that Congress' reference to the (t)iming and location of exploration, development and production in section 18(a)(2) merely reflects its recognition that the timing and location of the proposed lease sales specified in the leasing program affects the timing and location of exploration, development, and production. In other words, for the timing and location of exploration, development and production to be based upon the factors listed in section 18(a) (2), the leasing program itself must of necessity also be based thereon. Further support for this analysis is found in the language in section 18(a)(2) speaking to the (t)iming and location of exploration, development, and production ... among the ... regions of the outer Continental Shelf. 76 Once again, this nationwide allocation of OCS activities is performed at the leasing program stage. 89 We fully recognize that at the leasing program stage, much of the information culled from an assessment of the section 18(a)(2) factors may be predictive or speculative in nature. This does not mean, however, that consideration of any particular factor may be deferred until some later date. The Secretary's authority is to consider all regions and act on the basis of existing information. Although the continual collection and assimilation of pertinent information must of course continue throughout the OCS process, and although the speculative nature of any information may well affect the weight the Secretary attaches thereto in drawing up the leasing program, section 18(a)(2) nonetheless requires the Secretary at the program stage to consider, each factor listed therein on the basis of the best information available, and to base the leasing program upon the information thereby obtained. 90 (1) Did the Secretary misinterpret or fail to consider the factors enumerated in section 18(a)(2)? 91 (a) Section 18(a)(2)(B). 92 Petitioners contend that the Secretary misinterpreted the directive of section 18(a)(2)(B) that, in developing the leasing program, he consider an equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions. The Secretary interpreted this factor as follows: 93 Subpart (2)(B)    supports the contention that no one region is to bear the burden of supplying our nation with energy supplies, and that all regions should contribute to energy supplies unless the environmental risks are too high. 94 The directive to share developmental benefits and environmental risks requires the Department to ensure that all regions of the country with economically recoverable deposits of hydrocarbons participate in the leasing program to the extent that environmental risks are not too high. This mandate addresses the historical inequity which has resulted from over-reliance on the Gulf of Mexico. 77 95 Accordingly to the Secretary, the primary environmental risk to be considered here was the risk of occurrence of a major oil spill. 78 Considering this factor, the Secretary found that the probability of an oil spill related most directly to the quantity of oil likely to be produced in an area, and did not vary significantly on the basis of geography, weather, or geohazards. 79 The Secretary therefore argues that the risk of an environmentally damaging incident is largely equal nationwide. 80 96 Petitioners argue that the Secretary defined environmental risks in an unduly narrow fashion. They assert that the environmental risks OCS activities pose to any region depend not only on the likelihood of an oil spill but also on an assessment of the damage such an oil spill would inflict. The amount of damage that would befall an area, according to petitioners, is a product of the area's environmental sensitivity. Thus, to determine the environmental risks posed to an area, petitioners argue that the Secretary must consider the likelihood of an oil spill, the environmental sensitivity of the area, and the damage which would result to that area if an oil spill occurred. Petitioners further contend that an equitable sharing of the environmental risks can only be brought about if the Secretary considers the relative environmental sensitivity of the various OCS regions. Petitioners claim, however, that because the Secretary failed to consider the relative environmental sensitivity of the various OCS regions under section 18(a)(2)(G), he was unable to consider an equitable sharing of environmental risks. 97 We find ourselves in essential agreement with petitioners. We note initially that the Secretary's conclusion does not follow from his premises; that is, it does not follow from the fact that the likelihood of an oil spill is related to the quantity of oil present in a region that the risk of an oil spill is equal nationwide. Rather, it follows that the risk of an oil spill is greatest where the most oil is to be found, and we have been directed to nothing in the record which indicates that the amount of oil to be found in the various regions is approximately the same. Be that as it may, we must also conclude that the Secretary's interpretation of environmental risks is at odds with the plain meaning of the statutory language. A risk is commonly understood to mean the exposure to the chance of injury or loss. 81 Injury or loss to the environment from an oil spill, however, does not flow from the mere mathematical possibility that the spill might occur; it depends upon both the likelihood of a spill and the amount of damage the spill would inflict. Indeed, the final environmental impact statement prepared by the Secretary states that perhaps the most important component of any oil spill risk analysis is an assessment of the potential damage to vulnerable resources. 82 And, as petitioners point out, this variable is in turn dependent on an assessment of the area's environmental sensitivity. For example, an oil spill in an area of high environmental sensitivity would cause greater damage and therefore pose greater environmental risks than an equivalent oil spill in an area of lesser environmental sensitivity. Since the Secretary interpreted the term environmental risk contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, his consideration of this factor was flawed. Similarly, since the Secretary failed to consider the relative environmental sensitivity of the various OCS regions as required by section 18(a)(2)(G), 83 it follows that he failed to give proper consideration to the mandate of section 18(a)(2)(B) that environmental risks be equitabl(y) shar(ed) among the various OCS regions. 98 As for lease sales 73 and 80, of course, it is imperative as per the reasoning set out in IV A above that the Secretary more specifically identify the areas under consideration. That task once accomplished, the Secretary will be able to make a far more accurate assessment of the relative environmental sensitivities of the OCS regions in which those areas are located. 99 (b) Section (a)(2)(C). 100 Section 18(a)(2)(C) requires the Secretary to consider the location of (OCS) regions with respect to, and the relative needs of, regional and national energy markets. The Secretary concluded that there are no constraints on OCS production resulting from these considerations. 84 Petitioners contend that this determination is contrary to the evidence in the record, which allegedly shows that a West Coast oil glut is expected in the 1980's. 101 Our review of the record persuades us that the Secretary did consider this factor, and we find adequate support in the record for the Secretary's conclusion. The Secretary considered, among other things, a 387-page study of national and regional energy needs prepared by the Department of Energy, entitled Federal Leasing and Outer Continental Shelf Energy Production Goals, in which DOE concluded that the market situation does not constrain OCS production. 85 The Secretary also considered a specific analysis of the Availability of Transportation Networks to Bring Oil and Gas to Market, 86 which explored the various avenues available, including pipelines and tankers, for bringing discovered resources to shore, and for transporting the landed resources to refinery and demand centers 87 . This analysis found no unresolvable problems to exist. 88 102 We recognize that, to a considerable extent, the Secretary relied upon the projection of estimates and predictive and judgmental information. These characteristics, however, are inherent in most if not all of the factors listed in section 18(a)(2), including section 18(a)(2)(C). The location and needs of regional and national energy markets are matters which may change rapidly over the years, and which are often dependent on factors outside the Secretary's control-for example, the projections of the oil and gas supply contained in the OCS are speculative in nature; the demand for OCS resources may vary depending upon the price and level of imported oil and the political climate at the time its importation is desired or under consideration; the availability of transportation and refinery capacity may change depending upon the interaction of all these factors and a variety of others. Section 18 does not assume the Secretary possesses a crystal ball that will enable him to predict the future with absolute precision. He is not required to. He is required only to consider the factors set forth by Congress on the basis of the best existing information available. We conclude that the Secretary adequately considered the location and relative needs of regional and national energy markets. 89 103 (c) Section 18(a)(2)(D). 104 Subsection (a)(2)(D) requires the Secretary to consider the location of (OCS) regions with respect to other uses of the sea and seabed, including fisheries, navigation, existing or proposed sealanes, potential sites of deepwater ports, and other anticipated uses of the resources and space of the outer Continental Shelf. In his Proposed Final Program, the Secretary reported that 105 The location of the planning areas with respect to other uses of the sea and seabed has been considered. We have concluded that other uses need not pose irresolvable conflicts causing any entire planning area to be excluded from the schedule. This is because of the extensive pre-sale and post-sale planning process followed by the Department, and the Department's ability to exclude tracts from leasing if there are local conflicts which cannot be resolved. 90 106 In response to specific complaints expressing concern about potential conflicts between OCS activities and other uses of the sea and seabed, the Secretary identified means by which conflicts could be minimized. For example, with respect to alleged interference with Coast Guard sea lanes, the Secretary mentioned subsea completions and slant drilling (as) operational alternatives. 91 The Secretary also referred to ongoing Coast Guard studies to determine whether safe access routes should be designated which would be paramount to lease rights. 92 With respect to potential conflicts between OCS activities and fishery interests, the Secretary adverted to a number of protective measures, including sale-specific lease stipulations, the Fisherman's Contingency Fund, and BLM regulations for leasing and pipeline rights-of-way. 93 The Secretary also cited the experience in the Gulf of Mexico (which) shows that the fishing and offshore oil and gas industries can live side-by-side. 94 107 In light of this discussion we must reject petitioners' assertion that the Secretary offhandedly dismiss(ed) the section 18(a)(2)(D) factor. In making this claim petitioners rely solely upon the evidence pertaining to alternative uses of the sea and seabed in the area of the Georges Bank. Yet, ironically, the source of all their information is the Secretary's own Final Environmental Statement, which first identifies the sea and seabed uses that potentially conflict with OCS activities, and then discusses measures to minimize the conflicts and the probable impacts of oil spills. 95 The Secretary's discussion and the record evidence fully support his contention that he considered the elements of section 18(a)(2)(D). 96 108 (d) Section 18(a)(2)(F). 109 Subsection (a)(2)(F) requires the Secretary to consider the laws, goals, and policies of affected States which have been specifically identified by the Governors of such States as relevant matters for the Secretary's consideration. In his proposed leasing program the Secretary stated that 110 The laws, goals and policies of affected States have been reviewed and considered in preparing the program and we have not identified any which would make inappropriate or preclude the initiation or continuation of planning for any of the potential sales in the proposed final leasing program. After the pre-sale planning is completed, we will be in a better position to assess whether a sale should go forward or not, whether certain areas should be excluded from leasing, or whether special lease terms and conditions should be required to provide extra protection to particular environmental values or resource uses. 97 111 This conclusion followed from the following statement in the February 1980 Secretarial Issue Document: 112 In regard to consideration of laws, goals or policies of affected States, we have not determined any absolute impediment to inclusion of any OCS area on the planning schedule. Also, it would be inconsistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act for any approved coastal plan to include provisions which would preclude an entire area from being considered as a candidate for leasing. While the Governors of some affected States have objected to inclusion of some area on the leasing schedule, when their views are balanced against national energy policy, there does not appear to be any reason to exclude the areas from the planning schedule. 98 113 Petitioners argue that the Secretary failed to comply with section 18(a)(2)(F) by declining to delete from the program areas seaward of Northern and Central California which, they have alleged, cannot be developed in a manner consistent with state law. Development in these areas, they say, is inconsistent with California's approved Coastal Management plan and with California policy that development occur only where there are sufficient resources to justify the construction of pipelines, which California requires to preserve air quality and to minimize the risk of oil spills. 114 The Secretary responds that California's specific charges on this issue are best addressed at later points in the OCS decision-making process, in conjunction with specific proposed activities. The Secretary notes further that in the event of an actual conflict between a state and a federal licensee, the state has no veto; rather, the final decision on whether the licensee can proceed is made by the Secretary of Commerce. 99 115 We are satisfied that the Secretary adequately considered the potential impediments to exploration and development posed by state laws and policies. Although the Secretary did not deliver a result satisfactory to petitioners, it cannot be doubted that he assembled and analyzed data addressed to their concerns. 100 116 (e) Section 18(a)(2)(G). 117 Section 18(a)(2)(G) requires the Secretary to consider the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of different areas of the outer Continental Shelf. The statute provides no method by which environmental sensitivity and marine productivity are to be measured. But it does provide that these factors are to be considered in scheduling leasing activities among the OCS regions, and its use of the word relative confirms the evident meaning of this language-that the Secretary is to compare the environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of one OCS region with another. The Secretary reported that 118 The relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the different OCS areas has been an important consideration in developing the leasing program. The areas have not been ranked as some have suggested since it is not meaningful to weigh and rank, for example, the Georges Bank fishery with the bird colonies of the Farallon Islands, the Pacific and Arctic whales, or the coral banks of the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, no consensus on such a ranking exists. Given the absence of meaningful measurements, non-comparability of values, and lack of agreement among experts, a sensitivity matrix was developed which went as far as we felt was credible in displaying relative environmental sensitivities of potential leasing areas. The matrix, together with the extensive material developed as a result of the processes conducted under Section 18 and under NEPA, have been used to identify environmental sensitivities and to determine the earliest date when sufficient information would be available to permit a decision on whether to lease and under what terms and conditions. 101 119 The matrix to which the Secretary referred analyzed relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity within each of four major OCS regions: Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. 102 These four areas together include all of the individual OCS regions considered. Within the Atlantic region, for example, the matrix assessed, from high to low, the sensitivity of the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Blake Plateau, and Florida Straights regions in terms of commercial fishing, recreational fishing, marine mammal use, coastal birds, pelagic birds, and wetlands and estuaries. Individual OCS regions within the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska regions were similarly compared. 120 Petitioners complain that this method does not go far enough in that it makes only intra-region comparisons; for example, it does not compare the Atlantic region with the Pacific region, or the individual OCS regions within the Atlantic with the individual regions within the Pacific. The Secretary explained that 121 it would not be meaningful ... (to) compar(e) the environmental values of the specific biological resources of each individual OCS area.... First, comparison and weighing of various fishery species in the Alaskan OCS cannot be equated to the species of the Georges Bank since, in general, they are completely different resources, each with their own distinct values (e.g., crabs in Bristol Bay vs. lobsters in the North Atlantic).... Similarly, it is not meaningful to compare, by value or rank, the Pacific or Arctic whales with the coral banks in the Gulf of Mexico. 103 122 In essence, the Secretary stated it was impossible or impracticable or simply not useful to perform the comparison of relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity required by the language of section 18(a)(2)(G). We find apt the observations made by this court in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle: 123 This is not a circumstance of an agency seeking relief from a change which, after a good faith effort, it has found it cannot perform. It is, rather, an agency seeking vindication of an approach contrary to the explicit statutory design on the basis of its estimate of its lack of capacity to handle the task delegated to it. Before a court sanctions such actions, it will carefully study the governing statute ... to ascertain whether the statute authorizes approaches that deviate from the legislative mandate in response to concerns about feasibility. 104 124 We held in Alabama Power that (t)he agency's burden of justification in such a case is especially heavy. 105 We are not convinced that the Secretary has even approached that burden here. 125 First, we note that, despite his later claim of impossibility, the Secretary had before him, in May 1979, an assessment of the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity within the Atlantic, Pacific, Alaska, and Gulf of Mexico regions. 106 Although this comparison also involved resources with distinct values, it was performed and produced data of use to a decisionmaker. In addition, analysis within a given region as large as the Atlantic or the Pacific may be just as complex as a comparative analysis between regions. Second, the Secretarial Issue Document itself included some rough comparisons among the OCS regions. For example, the North Atlantic, offshore California, and several areas offshore of Alaska were identified as areas in which bird populations were most sensitive to oil spills; the Chukchi Sea, North Aleutian Shelf, and St. Georges Basin were identified as the areas in which onshore lifestyles were most sensitive to OCS development. Other areas were labeled as the most sensitive areas or relatively high sensitivity areas with respect to endangered species, endangered marine mammals, recreation, and commercial fishing. 107 Third, the Secretary's staff was of the view that it was feasible to construct matrices to rate environmental factors and to assess their compatibility with oil and gas exploration and development. This approach was abandoned not because it was technically infeasible, but because of lack of time and lack of readily available information. 108 And finally, California, Massachusetts, and the Environmental Protection Agency all proposed ways in which the environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the various OCS regions could be compared, 109 and the Council on Environmental Quality, as early as 1974, actually compiled a ranking among the various regions in terms of the environmental risks of OCS oil and gas development. 110 126 In light of this record, we cannot condone the Secretary's refusal to comply with the congressional mandate of section 18(a)(2)(G) to consider relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity. Lack of information, lack of time, and methodological imperfections all may make the consideration highly speculative, as will the difficulties inherent in comparing, to use the Secretary's example, coral reefs with arctic whales. But the difficulties inherent in this comparison were recognized by Congress when it stated, in the related provision of section 18(a)(3), that balancing of factors is to be performed to the maximum extent practicable. All that is required is that the Secretary make a good faith determination of the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the various regions based upon the best existing information available to him. The statute does not require the Secretary to compile a top-to-bottom ranking among all OCS regions, but he must at least attempt to identify those areas whose environment and marine productivity are most and least sensitive to OCS activity. 127 (2) Did the Secretary base the leasing program on the section 18(a)(2) factors? 128 The areas covered by a leasing program (location) and the order in which they are opened up to leasing (timing) must be determined in accordance with the principles of section 18. By reasonably concluding that several of the section 18(a)(2) factors posed no absolute or categorical impediment to leasing a particular area, the Secretary fulfilled his duty to base the location of leasing among the regions on these factors. He failed, however, to properly consider other 18(a)(2) factors in making his location decisions. Moreover, the Secretary failed altogether to rely upon the environmental and coastal zone factors of section 18(a)(2) when he determined the timing of his program. 129 (a) Location 130 As explained in the Final Environmental Statement, 131 Resource potential, economic benefits, and industry interest (were) key determinants of where sales should be located. Taking into account the pre-sale planning which is necessary for first sales in frontier areas, we have attempted to select sale areas on the basis of resource potential, economic benefits, and interest in exploration, as indicated by industry responses. 111 132 Petitioners cite this passage as proof that the Secretary read section 18(a)(2) out of the program development process, for a reliance upon resource potential, economic benefits, and industry interest omits any consideration of the coastal and environmental impact factors identified in sections 18(a)(2)(B), (D), (F), (G), or of the relative regional and national energy markets mentioned in section 18(a)(2)(C). 133 We reject petitioners' argument with respect to sections 18(a)(2)(C), (D), and (F). With respect to each of these sections, the Secretary determined that, on the basis of the information then available to him, the potential hurdles-whether a West Coast oil glut, vulnerable alternative uses of the sea and seabed, or conflicting State coast policies-were not necessarily insuperable. None of the posited impediments was categorical or absolute, the Secretary determined, because conflicts could be resolved at one of several post-planning stages in the OCS development process. In making these determinations the Secretary did not unlawfully defer consideration of these factors insofar as location is concerned. He considered whether otherwise attractive areas should be subject to leasing and reasonably concluded, insofar as the factors identified in sections 18(a)(2)(C), (D), and (F) are concerned, that nothing compelled the exclusion of these areas from the leasing program. 134 No such conclusion was possible, however, with respect to sections 18(a)(2)(B) & (G), for the Secretary misinterpreted the meaning of section 18(a)(2)(B)'s mandate to consider equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions and flouted the section 18(a) (2)(G)'s directive to consider the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of different areas of the outer Continental Shelf. On remand the new Secretary of Interior should determine whether these factors, properly considered in conjunction with other 18(a)(2) factors, warrant the exclusion of any area from his leasing program. 135 (b) Timing 136 The explanation in the May 1979 Proposed Program was that 137 The timing of lease sales is influenced by seven key factors: 138 1. Sound energy policy calls for opening up offshore areas to oil and gas activity as soon as this can be responsibly done; 139 2. Sound energy policy calls for the leasing and development of areas yielding greater economic benefits earlier than less promising areas; 140 3. Relative ranking of areas according to resource potential and industry interest in exploration provides a key to the probability of areas being hydrocarbon prone; 141 4. Availability of technology for exploration and development, determines the timing of successful industry operations in different areas; 142 5. Availability of environmental and geotechnical data determines ability to plan for sales and analyze the possible impacts of development; 143 6. Statutory and policy requirements for preparation of lease sales cannot be met immediately and simultaneously for all areas; and 144 7. Sales in frontier areas should be spaced so that the results of initial exploration can be available for planning subsequent sales. 112 145 None of these factors, obviously, incorporates the environmental and coastal zone impact considerations specified in section 18(a)(2). It was apparently the Secretary's belief that these considerations were merely issues which need to be addressed in the planning process or ... factors which could affect the precise timing of a sale. 113 As we have noted, this approach contradicts the statutory requirement that these considerations be taken into account at the programmatic stage; otherwise, the requirement that the Secretary select the timing of leasing among the regions is rendered meaningless. 146 In explanations accompanying the Proposed Final Program in April 1980, the Secretary claimed that timing and location were based on a consideration of oil and gas benefits and of costs broadly defined to include economic, environmental, and coastal zone impacts of exploration, development, and production. 114 Nowhere, however, does the Secretary indicate how this consideration occurred. What is more, the Secretary's final explanation of how timing was determined seems more consistent with the environmentally-blind scheme described in conjunction with the May 1979 proposed plan than with the terms of section 18(a)(2): 147 In developing a leasing program, sales were scheduled by starting at the top of the resource potential rankings provided by USGA and industry and determining the earliest date when sufficient information, from the environmental studies program and other sources within and outside the department, would be available to permit a decision, in light of potential cost, of whether to lease and under what terms and conditions. 115 148 Thus, although administrative exigencies were added to industry interest and resource potential as a consideration affecting the timing of leasing, the environmental and coastal zone considerations identified in the statute are still conspicuous by their absence. The Secretary failed to base timing and location of leasing activities among the OCS regions on all of the factors listed in section 18(a)(2). We remand to the present Secretary for him to cure this prior deficiency. 149