708 



sideration. We do not know whether any of tlie oil which may be 

 found on Georges Bank will be transported into New England — a 

 crucial factor in determining how on-shore development should pro- 

 ceed. We do not know the net impact of the needed increase in services 

 whicli will be required of municipalities, which may outweigli the 

 benefits of any increase in employment and tax revenues. We do not 

 know what shifts in population may occur and the increased services 

 which may be required to meet changing populations. We do not know 

 how cities will be able to respond to development activity w^hich may 

 occur. 



Our fishing industry, although it has been on the narrow edge of 

 survival for many years, is still a $50 million enterprise and too valu- 

 able to be pushed aside without more accurate information on what 

 the long tenn efi'ects of oft'shore development will be on connnercial 

 fishing stocks and the access of fisliennen to those stocks. We have a 

 recreation industry that supplies 75,000 primary jobs and over 100,000 

 for secondary employment. The keystone to this industry is the ocean — 

 especially along Cape Cod, the closest landfall to the proposed area 

 of petroleum development in New England. 



All of these issues are particularly ciitical to Massachusetts and 

 New England following the Interior Depailment's announcement last 

 month that it is calling for nominations for accelerated oil and gas 

 development on Georges Bank. This action sets in motion a 15-month 

 process which may culminate in the sale of leases on Georg"es Bank 

 to oil companies in August of next year. It was taken despite the fact 

 that the Department has failed to respond to our requests for data 

 on the value of these publicly owned energy^ resources and despite the 

 absence of equally accelerated action to protect marine and costal re- 

 sources. My letter to Secretai-y Hathaway, a copy of which I will ask 

 to be printed at the conclusion of my remarks, states those concerns 

 more fully. I am still awaiting a reply. 



In the absence of steps by the executive branch to win public con- 

 fidence in the offshore oil and gas leasing process and to initiate a co- 

 operative effort between local. State and Federal Governments, the 

 Senate, in the bill we liave l>efore us today, is assigning high priority 

 to the resolution of these problems. Tlie following provisions of the 

 pending Coastal Zone Management Act amendments will be of partic- 

 ular importance : 



The establishment of a coastal energy facility impact fund, pro- 

 viding loans and grants of up to $250 million per year for 3 years to 

 offset impacts of major energy facilities : 



The establishment of a Coastal Impacts Review Board to determine 

 whether States will suffer adverse impacts from energy facilities; 



The authorization of a Federal guarantee of State or local bonds 

 used to provide public facilities and services required by offshore en- 

 ergy production operations ; 



The clarification of offshore leases as activities which must be con- 

 sistent with federally-approved coastal zone management programs 

 and assurance that onshore impacts from offshore operations will have 

 to conform with State coastal zone plans ; 



The provision of $10 million aimually for coastal zone research 

 and training needed to speed the completion of State coastal zone 

 programs ; 



