271 



shoreline ecosystem from the threat of oil contamination, and will greatly ap- 

 preciate being kept informed of future developments in which you are involved. 

 With many thanks for your interest, 

 Very sincerely, 



Dennis Puu:ston, 

 Chairman, Board of Trustees. 



American Littoral Society, 

 Highlands, N.J., February 29, 1912. 

 Senator Edward M. Kennedy, 

 U.S. Senate, 

 Washington, D.C. 



Dear Senator Kennedy : "We are happy to submit comments on Atlantic Coast 

 offshore drilling as requested in your letter of January 14 to John Storr, who has 

 asked me to answer in his stead. 



Our organization is not convinced that American companies can extract oil 

 from offshore without routine oil spills and periodic drastic spills and blowouts. 

 Nor are we convinced that companeis care t o conform to federal laws for 

 offshore drilling (see the storm choke fiasco in the Gulf) . 



We are concerned because east coast marine resources are much more fragile 

 and more susceptible to spills than the west coast resources. The east coast is a 

 thin ribbon of marsh and estuary, dotted with inlets. Oil on rocks and beaches 

 causes nowhere near the environmental damage that oil in the Chesapeake or 

 Pamlico Sound would cause. See Blumer's work at Woods Hole, where a marsh 

 two years after a spill has not recovered its productivity. 



We are not convinced that "national defense" demands the exploitation of 

 east coast continental shelf oil deposits now. The big push for deepwater ports 

 and deep draft tankers in Maine, New Jersey, and Maryland/Virginia is also 

 backed by the national defense argument. I don't think it makes sense. 

 Sincerely, 



D. W. Bennett, 

 Conservation Director. 



State of Maine, 

 Dbspabtment of Sea and Shore Fisheries, 



Augusta, Maine, February 4, 1972. 

 Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, 

 U.S. Senate, 

 Washington, D.C. 



De^4.r Senator Kennedy : Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the pro- 

 posed leasing of oil drilling rights on the Atlantic Coast. As you may know, we 

 have had some rather disastrous oil spills in Maine in fairly recent years ; and 

 with the oil handling facilities at South Portland and at Searsport in Penobscot 

 Bay, the coastal waters are almost chronically subject to spills of varying mag- 

 nitudes. 



We have worked cooperatively in evaluating results of these spills with EPA, 

 FDA, Maine institutions and agencies, and WHOI. Results of some of this re- 

 search point up very clearly the disastrous effects of oil spills even though they 

 are listed as small or less than moderate. 



On the basis of periodic surveys of Long Cove, Searsport, follovdng the March 

 1971 oil spill, it has been determined that approximately 5,400 bushels of clams 

 had died from the oil contamination by November 2, 1971. Mortalities are still 

 in progress. The surviving population, as of November 2, was estimated to be 

 17,732 bushels — down from a pre-spill standing crop of more than 23,000 bushels. 

 Oil-asociated mortalities represent 23 percent of the March population. 



Six percent of the oil-contaminated clams collected from this area on July 7 

 and August 3, 1971, for histopathological examination contained gonadal tumors. 

 All sampling stations on the west side of the cove were positive in both months. 

 On the east side only the most northly station was positive, and then only in 

 August. 



Tumor incidence decreased from 27 percent near the source of the contamination 

 at the head of the cove to zero at the most distant station on the northern end 

 of Sears Island. 



Although affected clams at the same stations declined from 17 percent in 

 August, the extent of the area affected has increased. Since clam mortality 

 has been progressive, it can be assumed that some clams with tumors at the 



