458 



-10- 



must recognize this risk and this uncertainty. Monitoring is 

 helpful and important; however, it is not dispositive and 

 certainly does not eliminate or even minimize the risk of 

 fisheries damage. Interior has chosen to use Georges Bank as 

 a laboratory — the effects on the fishery of oil and gas operat- 

 ions will be assessed, if at all, over a period that may extend 

 for 4 years. In future years' we may look back in horror at 

 the damage we have caused this vital food resource. Are the 

 oil and gas decisions of today the toxic waste disposal decisions 

 of 20 years ago? 



In conclusion, CLF would like to stress again our belief 

 that the BTF and the monitoring program are comforting and 

 important gestures to protection of the Georges Bank fishery. 

 However, they are neither a final answer nor a cure for risk. 

 The careful resource potential-- versus-- environmental risk 

 decisions must still be made. Georges Bank, by all accounts, 

 is a truly insignificant oil field. It is also our most productive 

 domestic fishery, and an economic resource of enormous and 

 perpetual value. CLF firmly believes that oil and gas operations — 

 even if subjected to the most vigorous scientific scrutiny — 

 may no longer be worth the risk to the fishery. 



Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these 

 important matters. 



