cisionmaking process, this is as I understand it the intent of the act, then I really believe it should not represent any significant addition to the time involved in decisionmaking.

Now, let us recognize, we are talking about a new act, a new requirement that is substantially added to the experience and tradition of many agencies.

They are gearing up, they are undoubtedly having to make adjustments during this transitional period. That does add time, but I think we will rapidly get over this period.

Senator BUCKLEY. Is it possible to develop an environmental policy in your judgment, when each agency has speedy mandates and is charged with considering alternatives, such as the AEC is required to consider, and the FPC is to consider certain matters?

Do we need to, in other words, study the methods of the agencies? Dr. TRAIN. I have no doubt this might be helpful.

I think the President's proposal, for a Department of Natural Resources, consolidating there a number of energy functions of the Federal Government could be very helpful in this regard.

I think that the 102 process involving the existing different agencies involved in energy, for example, and the fact that they must develop a full identification and discussion of possible alternatives to a given action, is moving the Federal Government toward the development of an overall coherent view of energy policy, so I think there are certain very positive advantages flowing in my view from this particular aspect of the environmental impact process.

Senator BUCKLEY. Just one final question, Dr. Train.

Will the Quad City legislation be drafted as an amendment to the NEPA, or the Atomic Energy Commission Act?

Dr. TRAIN. I think that I will defer to Dr. Schlesinger on that. I am just not positive.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much.

I have no further questions.

Senator BUCKLEY. Senator Bellmon, I understand you have some questions.

Senator BELLMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret I was not able to be here for all of the testimony, and all of the questions, and perhaps the matter I want to raise has already been covered.

If it has, I will be glad to redirect my questions. I have recently been on a field hearing held by the Interior Committee, where we are studying natural gas problems, and several of the witnesses who testified in New Orleans pointed out the serious problems they had of finally getting clearance on environmental statements, before they could proceed with some of the work that has gone on, and the question is, under the way NEPA is really being administered, is there an unnecessary delay, and is there a final authority where persons with environmental questions and problems can go to get an answer promptly?

Dr. TRAIN. Under our guidelines, draft statements must be made public and circulated 90 days before final action is taken, and before a final statement is issued, and the final statement, I am not sure my explanation here will exactly come out right, and the final statement must precede the action by 30 days; however, that 30 days

can fall within the 90, so the 90 can be the total period of time between the circulation of a draft and the taking of the actual action involved. Now, you asked whether this has led to delay. I would suppose to some extent, assuming an agency was otherwise ready to act, that there is some delay implicit in this process.

There would seem to me to be no alternative, if the intent of the Congress in adopting the legislation is to be carried out, and if other agencies are to be given a reasonable opportunity to review a project, and to comment and the public to respond.

Now, as to where to go to get answers as to environmental questions, I think in the first instance, the place to go is to the responsible agency. It would be the one responsible for developing environmental impact analyses.

Senator BELLMON. Are the responsibilities clearly defined so there is no buckpassing between the agencies?

Dr. TRAIN. I think that the responsibilities are really quite clearly defined, and we have spelled out in our guidelines that it is the lead agency, in a given project that must make responsibility for the environmental impact analysis. Where there has been some question as to whether-as to who was supposed to do what-and this has come to our attention, we have exercised our coordinating office to bring the agencies together at the Council, and to hammer this out, and in every case we have gotten immediate agreement as to who was supposed to do what.

Now we have in that connection been working very closely with the Atomic Energy Commission, as well as the other agencies involved, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, following the Calvert Cliffs decision, to do everything we can do to expedite the efficient, rapid and effective processing of environmental impact analysis statements, which had to be developed following that decision, and we have set up schedules for each agency. We have asked each agency to identify a fixed point of responsibility.

We have had periodic meetings, to see how everybody was doing in meeting these schedules.

We have asked if a problem arose, that it be identified, so that we know about it, so something could be done about it.

We feel this is a very important element in our responsibility. Senator BELLMON. One of the chief critics was a representative from Louisiana, from the Louisiana Fish and Game Department, and his problem had to do with some of the dredging that has to go on in the coastal areas, and the fact that his agency might satisfy itself that the project was not going to have a negative environmental impact, and yet when he tried to get a Federal agency to give final clearance, he very often was frustrated and could not get anybody to put the final stamp of approval on the project. What is the problem in a case like that?

Dr. TRAIN. The hangup, I suppose, generally comes down to a reluctance on the part of an agency to make a decision, and I don't know how you get around that.

Our guidelines require circulation of a draft statement to other agencies, and say that these comments must be back to the originating agency within 30 days, except in the case of EPA, I believe they

are given 45 days. So the period is fixed, and they must comment within that period of time.

After that period, it is simply a matter of responsibility, of the responsible agency making up its mind in what to do.

That is where the hangup is. It does not lie in the Council. That is not to say we never ask questions, but it is really only in a small minority of the cases that we do, and I will say this, I am frequently advised, by members of the public who are interested in the project, by Members of Congress or agencies, that we are holding up a given project, and I look into it, and find there is no truth in this at all, that the agency is ready to go ahead, but has not made its own decision.

Senator BELLMON. Well, is there a central environmental czar some place in the structure, so that when something is not moving, we could go to this person to get action?

Dr. TRAIN. Well, it does not sound to me like in most of these cases it is an environmental problem.

It is a matter of somebody making up his mind, and willing to make a tough decision, knowing that in most of these decisions, as we talked about earlier, there are many competing interests and values involved. No matter how you come out in your decision, somebody will be sore

at you.

Senator BELLMON. That is one of the problems of making a decision. Dr. TRAIN. This is the nature of government.

Senator BELLMON. The thing is somebody has to decide, and I think this individual was quite justified in making the criticism that when he gets to Washington, he gets passed from one agency to another, and nobody seems to be in a position to say this is the way it will be, and it seems to me, if we do not have that arrangement, perhaps we should establish it.

Dr. TRAIN. I would make this suggestion, again. In the first instance, where there is a case of that sort, the interested parties should contact the responsible agency in writing, and ask what is the reason for delay.

Now, if the stated reason is not responsive in some fashion, or indicates that some other agency is holding it up, or is perhaps in our Council, and I would urge that this be brought to my attention, and in that fashion, I would be able to deal with it. But I am not the czar. Senator BELLMON. Do we need a czar?

Dr. TRAIN. I have very limited confidence in czars.

Senator BELLMON. Well, do we need an additional decisionmaking process than we presently have?

Dr. TRAIN. What is that again, sir?

Senator BELLMON. Do we need an additional decisionmaker that we presently lack?

Are all of the decisionmaking processes there that we need?

Dr. TRAIN. I believe so. I believe Congress has fixed in agency heads program responsibility for whatever it may be.

Senator BELLMON. And if it involves more than one agency?

Dr. TRAIN. The responsible agency still has the decisionmaking authority under its program.

Senator BELLMON. Which agency would this be when it comes to dredging in the Federal coastal areas?

Dr. TRAIN. Well, now, this could be a variety of situations.

Senator BELLMON. This is the problem. There are a variety of situations, and apparently we cannot find exactly where the responsibility lies.

Dr. TRAIN. A dredge and fill permit must be received from the Corps of Engineers in the usual case.

The Corps of Engineers is required under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to consult with the Department of the Interior.

Senator BELLMON. Even if the dredging is being done by private industry?

Dr. TRAIN. Yes, because of the impact on fisheries.

Senator BELLMON. But the corps is involved?

Dr. TRAIN. The Corps of Engineers is required, if this is on the offshore of the United States, to grant a permit before there can be any dredging.

Senator BELLMON. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAKER. Thank you. Senator Gravel.

Senator GRAVEL. I would be derelict if I did not ask you, do you have any knowledge on the status of the Alaskan pipeline statement? Dr. TRAIN. I think I have said in other hearings, I would be surprised if you did not ask me that question.

I do not believe I have anything to add myself.

Senator GRAVEL. We are told the impact statement will probably be ready the 15th of March.

Dr. TRAIN. I do not know that.

I know that the Department of the Interior has substantially completed its work on the impact statement, and we have been in touch with the Department as they have been with other agencies, but exactly what kind of a schedule, what the plans are, I don't know.

Senator GRAVEL. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Senator BAKER. Thank you very much, Senator Gravel.

Dr. TRAIN. Mr. Chairman, I have several other documents I would like to have inserted in the record.

The first is a briefing paper, hearings on the National Environmental Policy Act.5

The second is a memorandum for heads of agencies, the subject is continuing effort to improve agency NEPA procedures.

The third document is projects in which actions have been held up in whole or part by court orders under NEPA."

Senator BAKER. Without objection, these documents will be made a part of the record.

I have no further questions. I thank you very much, Dr. Train, for appearing today, and having the patience to stay with us.

Dr. TRAIN. Thank you for the opportunity.

(The appendixes referred to throughout Dr. Train's testimony follow :)

APPENDIX 1

PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11514. MARCH 5, 1970

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and in furtherance of the purpose and policy of the National Environmental Policy

See app. 5, p. 81. See app. 6, p. 85. 7 See app. 7, p. 85.

Act of 1969 (Public Law No. 91-190, approved January 1, 1970), it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Policy. The Federal Government shall provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's environment to sustain and enrich human life. Federal agencies shall initiate measures needed to direct their policies, plans and programs so as to meet national environmental goals. The Council on Environmental Quality, through the Chairman, shall advise and assist the President in leading this national effort.

SEC. 2. Responsibilities of Federal agencies. Consonant with Title I of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, hereafter referred to as the "Act", the heads of Federal agencies shall:

(a) Monitor, evaluate, and control on a continuing basis their agencies' activities so as to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. Such activities shall include those directed to controlling pollution and enhancing the environment and those designed to accomplish other program objectives which may affect the quality of the environment. Agencies shall develop programs and measures to protect and enhance environmental quality and shall assess progress in meeting the specific objectives of such activities. Heads of agencies shall consult with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies in carrying out their activities as they affect the quality of the environment.

(b) Develop procedures to ensure the fullest practicable provision of timely public information and understanding of Federal plans and programs with environmental impact in order to obtain the views of interested parties. These procedures shall include, whenever appropriate, provisions for public hearings, and shall provide the public with relevant information, including information on alternative courses of action. Federal agencies shall also encourage State and local agencies to adopt similar procedures for informing the public concerning their activities affecting the quality of the environment.

(c) Insure that information regarding existing or potential environmental problems and control methods developed as part of research, development, demonstration, test, or evaluation activities is made available to Federal agencies, States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and other entities, as appropriate.

(d) Review their agencies' statutory authority, administrative regulations, policies, and procedures, including those relating to loans, grants, contracts, leases, licenses, or permits, in order to identify any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit or limit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of the Act. A report on this review and the corrective actions taken or planned, including such measures to be proposed to the President as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformance with the intent, purposes, and procedures of the Act, shall be provided to the Council on Environmental Quality not later than September 1, 1970.

(e) Engage in exchange of data and research results, and cooperate with agencies of other governments to foster the purposes of the Act.

(f) Proceed, in coordination with other agencies, with actions required by section 102 of the Act.

SEC. 3. Responsibilities of Council on Environmental Quality. The Council on Environmental Quality shall:

(a) Evaluate existing and proposed policies and activities of the Federal Government directed to the control of pollution and the enhancement of the environment and to the accomplishment of other objectives which affect the quality of the enviromnent. This shall include continuing review of procedures employed in the development and enforcement of Federal standards affecting environmental quality. Based upon such evaluations the Council shall, where appropriate. recommend to the President policies and programs to achieve more effective protection and enhancement of environmental quality and shall, where appropriate, seek resolution of significant environmental issues.

(b) Recommend to the President and to the agencies priorities among programs designed for the control of pollution and for enhancement of the environment.

(c) Determine the need for new policies and programs for dealing with environmental problems not being adequately addressed.

(d) Conduct, as it determines to be appropriate, public hearings or conferences on issues of environmental significance.