Mr. MARSHALL. This is to Representative Lennon, chairman:

The Massachusetts Conservation Council, representing twenty-seven Massachusetts organizations with active programs in Conservation, wishes to be recorded in favor of H.R. 11584, the Marine Sanctuaries Study Bill, and hopes that the studies proposed by the act will provide protection of Georges Banks and other similar areas, including on-shore coastal and estaurine areas which might be adversely affected. The studies should also prevent exploitation at the expense of existing and future marine uses.

We also favor the proposed moratorium on industrial development in these areas during the period of these studies.

I also have a statement on behalf of the Atlantic chapter of the Sierra Club and the eastern New England group of the Sierra Club of which I am chairman.

I am Roger Marshall, of 33 Linnaean Street, Cambridge, Mass. I am present before the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to appear in favor of H.R. 11584, the proposed Marine Sanctuaries Study Act and other similar bills.

I am here in behalf of the Atlantic chapter of the eastern New England group of the Sierra Club, a national conservation organization with approximately 60,000 members, dedicated to helping "people explore, enjoy, and protect parks, wilderness, waters, forests, and wildlife."

You will hear a separate statement for the national organization of the Sierra Club. I am here for the Atlantic chapter with about 6,000 members of the Sierra Club, having along the Atlantic coast, from Maine to Florida, east of the Appalachians, and for the eastern New England group with about 600 of these members living in the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

The Atlantic chapter, and especially the eastern New England group, are deeply concerned about the future development of the Georges Bank area. This vast area of some 13,000 square miles above the 100meter depth, is presently fished by some 14 nations, and produces some 1.65 billion pounds of edible fish annually. This represents about 12 percent of the world's take and about 40 percent of this country's supply.

Georges Bank means the livelihood for the New England fishing industry which employs some 4,000 fishermen, about 700 trawlers, and has an average annual landing value of fish take of about $25.6 million.

In addition, many more taxpaying citizens of New England are involved in the packing and shipping operations for this important industry.

Near Georges Bank is the new Cape Cod National Seashore, created by the Congress and enacted on August 7, 1961. This great milestone in legislative foresight is in the process of saving this precious and irreplaceable, fragile area for the generations of the future.

In early September 1966 an explosive exploratory seismographic charge was triggered off Georges Bank. It killed many thousands of fish and disrupted the fishing in the area for some 2 weeks. This violation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, 1953, prohibiting such explosions which interfere with or are harmful to the aquatic life in the area, brought about a rude awakening: It is believed that there may be oil and/or gas under Georges Bank.

Our Nation and the world rely tremendously on this vital source of energy and organic chemicals. When one compares the billions of dollars spent each year by this great industry on exploration (Humble, representing 9 percent of the U.S. oil production, spent some $210 million in 1967), the New England fishing industry, with its few millions and the $16 million authorized to date for the Cape Cod Seashore are difficult to compare on strictly a dollar scale.

The great question is how can we explore for and produce oil and gas without causing undue harm or the extinction of such a vital source of the world's food supply.

Within the past year nonexplosive "Vibroseis" and "Sparker Ray" exploratory techniques have been used along Georges Bank with presumably no immediately visible damage to aquatic life. Little if anything is known about possible long-term effects.

The reality of the fact is that explosive techniques will be required prior to exploratory drilling, and fish just don't go off on vacation to keep from being killed.

There are presently regulations governing blowout protection, plugging and abandonment, subsurface safety devices, control of pollution, drilling and production methods, underwater completions, burial of pipelines, et cetera, but do they apply to the coast of the vicious Atlantic? Do they afford adequate safety for Georges Bank and its adjacent coast and shoreline?

In the past year there have been two or more oil spills along Cape Cod possibly caused by faulty transshipment practices, and perhaps permitted by lack of the legal strength to prosecute the polluters if and when they are apprehended.

We don't want to have another Torrey Canyon disaster to find out if the present protection technology is fail-safe with respect to Georges Bank. It presently appears that the use of detergents, for example, do not solve the problems of oil pollution; although they help make the oil spill go away, they seem to do more harm to the marine biota than does the oil spill itself.

The preceding discussion leads, of course, to the necessity for the proposed Marine Sanctuaries Study Act bills.

The proposed Marine Sanctuaries Study Act will give the Secretary of the Interior the mandate to study and formulate recommendations with respect to the possible establishing of marine sanctuaries, as well as the methodology for the necessary control of development therein.

H.R. 11584 affords a means for determining methods for the protection and cooperative exploitation of areas such as Georges Bank. The proposed study should result in the development of the necessary advanced technology and planning to prevent destruction of the physical, biological, scenic, and economic values of undersea areas which are presently ripe for development. In addition the study should help with the development of techniques of planning for and the orderly handling of the problems of the expected resultant onshore economic growth.

The proposed act will give the Secretary of the Interior the opportunity to make full use of the knowledge of other Federal agencies as well as interested public and private organizations. This is consistent with the best principles of professional planning techniques.

In addition to representatives from Federal and State agencies, the study committee should include members of the fishing and petroleum industries, oceanographers and marine engineers, representatives of adjacent local areas of regional and/or national importance, such as the Cape Cod National Seashore, professional planners and researchers, and conservationists. All members of the study committee should be willing to contribute to the study report with an unbiased and professional outlook.

In order to give meaning to the anticipated study recommendations the proposed act calls for a moratorium on further industrial development until the study recommendations can be implemented. This is very necessary.

Although the time limit of 2 years is relatively short and the appropriation is limited (perhaps it should be increased to include research for areas in addition to Georges Bank), the objectives of the study are truly noble and worthy.

The Marine Sanctuaries Study Act bills deserve your favorable report and prompt enactment by the Congress.

I appreciate the opportunity to present these views.

I would like to appendix my remarks, if I may, sir, by giving you a copy of the position paper of Dr. Milner Schaefer, who is science adviser to Secretary Udall.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Position Paper of Dr. Milner Shaefer, Science Adviser to Secretary Udall OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO FISHERY RESOURCES IN THE GEORGES BANK AREA

The relationships between the Federal Government and the coastal States regarding ownership of the minerals on the Continental Shelf are established by the Submerged Lands Act of May 22, 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1301-1315), the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act of August 7, 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1331–1343), and subsequent agreements and court decisions interpreting their provisions.

The Submerged Lands Act granted the coastal States title to the submerged lands seaward of their coasts to a distance of 3 geographical miles in the case of the Atlantic, Pacific and most Gulf States, and up to 3 marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico for Texas and Florida. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act declared that submerged lands lying seaward of those lands granted the States are subject to the jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition of the Federal Government.

Congress has long had a policy of multiple use of Federal lands. The policy was founded on the premise that lands of the United States should provide the maximum benefits to the maximum number of people. Although the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was passed in order to promote and encourage mineral development of shelf lands, it provides that "the right to navigation and fishing therein shall not be affected." The Department of the Interior administers its responsibilities under this Act by adhering strictly to this guideline of multiple use. Bureaus of equal level function under separate Assistant Secretaries for Land Management, Mineral Resources, and Fish and Wildlife; each provides the Secretary with data and consultation necessary to properly and equitably administer the Act.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides for the granting of mineral exploration and exploitation rights. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized by Section 8 of the Act to grant to qualified persons offering the highest cash bonuses on the basis of competitive bidding, leases for oil and gas, sulphur, and other minerals. A total of 1,277 such leases have been issued. Section 6 of the Act authorizes maintenance of certain mineral leases covering OCS lands which had been issued by a State prior to the effective date of the Act. A large number of these leases off the Gulf Coast are being so maintained.

The Act also provides for geological and geophysical explorations. Section 11 specifies that any agency of the United States and any person authorized by the

Secretary may conduct such explorations in the Outer Continental Shelf which do not interfere with or endanger actual operations under any lease issued or maintained pursuant to the Act, and which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area. Numerous explorations have been conducted off all of the coastal States except Hawaii under permits issued by the Regional Oil and Gas Supervisors of the Geological Survey under delegations of authority from the Secretary. Some of these explorations have extended hundreds of miles seaward to the Continental Slope. The regulations governing mineral development on the Outer Continental Shelf may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Titles 30 and 43.

The following are important aspects of offshore mineral activities that, in one degree or other, may have an impact on the living resources of the oceans: 1. Exploration for offshore oil and gas

2. Geophysical procedures and methods, explosive and nonexplosive

3. Planning of lease offerings

4. Blowout protection

5. Plugging and abandonment of wells

6. Subsurface safety devices

7. Control of pollution

8. Drilling and producing methods

9. Underwater completions

10. Burial of pipelines

11. Cooperative planning

These are discussed below because it is important that the citizens of New England be informed on Federal oil and gas operations and be encouraged to participate fully in discussions to provide for equitable multiple use of the Outer Continental Shelf lands and the waters above these lands.

EXPLORATION FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS

Traces or "showings" of petroleum are of no more interest to oil companies and gas companies than a few scattered fish are to fishermen. Commercially valuable accumulations of oil and gas are rare and hard to find. Oil fields and gas fields occur only under certain favorable circumstances: where there are porous and permeable beds of rock into which hydrocarbons can move, where some sort of geologic structure creates a trap for holding these hydrocarbons, and, obviously, a source of hydrcarbons.

Past experience indicates that, should drilling for oil and gas ever be conducted in an area with little previous knowledge, such as Georges Bank, the odds of discovering an oil or gas field are about 1 in 10. Based on data from seismic and other programs of oceanographic institutions, if oil or gas is discovered, it is unlikely that as much as 5 percent of the area would be underlain by commercial deposits. Georges Bank, to a depth of 100 meters (328 feet) of water, is about 150 nautical miles long and an average of about 65 nautical miles wide, or an area of some 10,000 square miles; even if it turns out to be a rich producing region, it is likely to contain producible fields in less than 500 square miles.

The geology of the Atlantic Continental Shelf, especially off New England, was little known until recently. It is only in the last several years that there have been indications that Georges Bank might have petroleum source rocks, might have suitable reservoir rocks, and might have geologic structures effective in trapping oil or gas. Industrial scientists and engineers take a variety of steps to resolve these uncertainties. On the East Coast these initial investigations have been in progress under permit since 1960.

During the summer of 1967, 18 core holes were drilled for geologic information on the Atlantic Continental Slope beyond the Shelf; these holes were wide spaced from Florida to the 40th parallel to sample the rocks themselves and determine the succession of layers. The nearest drilling to Georges Banks was at 39° 52′ N. Lat. and 69° 36′ W. Long. in water depths between 3,500 and 4,600 feet. The drilling was not for direct testing or production of oil and gas because there have been no lease sales of OCS lands in the Atlantic; the maximum depth allowed under the permit for these geologic core holes was 1,000 feet below the ocean bottom.

GEOPHYSICAL PROCEDURES AND METHODS

Geophysical explorations are conducted by several methods. There are devices for measuring natural properties of the earth that help the geologist deduce information about rock structure, composition, depth, etc. Many of these devices

are passive in that they simply detect existing forces or properties, such as gravity, geomagnetic fields, or radiometric character. New devices are constantly being sought and, in the future, the variety of instruments will undoubtedly increase; instruments sensing infrared properties, radar response, or other characteristics may be adapted to oil and gas exploration. None of these affect marine life and will not be discussed.

Geophysical exploration by seismic methods are of considerably more interest to the fishing industry than the methods mentioned above. Seismic methods involve the use of both explosive and nonexplosive devices. In either case, the object is to send a signal or shock wave through the rocks which will be partly reflected back from each layer of rock to sensitive recording devices called geophones. From the record of these reflections it is possible to interpret the configuration of the underlying rock structures. This furnishes important clues in determining where accumulations of oil or gas could occur.

Explosive devices

For many years the most widely used methods involved the detonation of charges of dynamite, black powder, or nitro-carbo-nitrate to generate the shock waves. Charges in the past have ranged in size from a few ounces to several hundred pounds, but shots in excess of 50 pounds are seldom used in the Atlantic. Nitro-carbo-nitrate is the explosive that is most used at present.

From the time exploration for oil and gas began in offshore areas of the United States many years ago, there has been very close observation of the effect on aquatic resources. Dead fish have been found in the vicinity of some seismic operations. Experiments have shown that fish are indeed killed in the near vicinity of explosions of the magnitude used in geophysical exploration. For example, experiments with 25-pound charges of nitro-carbo-nitrate showed the lethal range for anchovies and sardines, both of which have air bladders, is about 500 feet. Smaller size charges have proportionally lesser lethal ranges. Variables in the intensity of a seismic explosion can be expected depending on differing oceanographic conditions. Different types of fish also are affected differently. Fish with air bladders, such as cod and haddock, are more susceptible to damage than fish without air bladders, such as flounder and sole. Shellfish of all types are not affected unless extremely close to the blast. It is not certain whether or not planktonic organisms (drifting plants and animals of microscopic size) are damaged; but this is not a critical matter because of the widespread distribution of these organisms in the sea, as a result of which adverse effects over a limited area can have little effect on the total population. In some cases it has been shown that adult fish have not been harmed by explosions, but there is less experimental evidence of effects on their drifting eggs and larvae; again, because of the wide distribution of these stages, this is not a critical problem.

The Secretary of the Interior has entered into formal cooperative agreements with Georgia, California, and all States bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, except Mississippi, governing geophysical operations. In addition, the Oil and Gas Supervisors of the Geological Survey have entered into informal arrangements with Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Essentially these provide that geophysical activities on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, although under Federal control, will be conducted in accordance with the same State regulations that control geophysical explorations within the State's submerged lands, and State observers may be used to ensure protection of aquatic life.

The aforementioned States have adopted comprehensive regulatory programs governing exploration operations in areas of State jurisdiction and have set size limits on explosive charges. Most require that observers, employing devices to observe the presence of fish schools, and with authority to stop or move operations be on board during seismic shooting. Off Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, steps have been taken to schedule exploration operations to coincide with seasons or time periods when valuable concentrations of fish will not be in the area of shooting. Scheduling operations seasonally would be of less value in the Georges Bank area, however, because it has a year-around population of several species of commercial fish.

There are no Federal-State cooperative agreements currently in effect on the Atlantic Coast north of Georgia. Exploration permits are issued by the Regional Oil and Gas Supervisor subject to such requirements and restrictions as he deems necessary after consultation with representatives of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries to ensure that aquatic life will be protected. The Bureau is afforded an opportunity (1) to make recommendations on conditions to be included in per