In regard to the Gulf of Alaska, the Impact Statement indicates that the intentional discharge of ballast water and accidental spills "could

i be

a definite threat to the marine ecosystem" (FIS, Vol. #4, p. 542). Since the currents in the Gulf of Alaska would circulate any spilled oil, "it #could affect areas far distant from the original discharge site" (FIS, L: Vol. #4, pp. 542-543).

In addition to effects on commercial fisheries, chronic pollution and oil spills in Prince William Sound, "would have permanent and farreaching effects upon certain forms of plankton, particularly plankton These effects would be manifested

3 larvae provided by benthic organisms.

in a general decrease in primary producti

other parts of the marine ecosystem" (FIS

which would, in turn, affect 1.#4, p. 543). The Impact

Statement states that this type of loss could also be significant in destination port areas (FIS, VOL.#4, p. 543). And even a temporary loss of production due to an oil spill could have a devastating effect on salmon and other

species" (FIS, Vol. 4, p. 544).

definite:

In regard to sea otters and fur seals the Impact Statement is

"The direct effect of low level pollution from the Port
Valdez ballast treatment effluent and from tank cleaning
operations at sea would very likely kill sea otters. Any
sea otter coming in even passing contact with the spill of
more than a few barrels would die, and it is likely that
fur seals would also."
(FIS, Vol. #4, p. 548)

b. Recent information on the extent and persistence of oil
pollution:

On February 13, 1973, the Department of Commerce issued a press release and a study by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) entitled Fish Larvae Found In Environment Contaminated With Oil And Plastic. This modest sounding study reveals that oil pollution is distributed far more widely in the Atlantic Ocean than had previously been

suspected by the United States government.

The NOAA researchers found that:

"Oil globules...in massive proportions infect nearly 700,000 square

miles of blue water from Cape Cod to the Caribbean Sea, becoming part of the habitat of uncountable numbers of newborn blue marlin, tuna, bluefish, and other prized game and commercial species.

'One of the survey ships, ALBATROSS IV, reported that 75 percent

of the time its nets were befouled by oil clumps so thick they extruded through the mesh 'like spaghetti.' All three [research] vessels, though widely separated, experienced similar conditions.

'Subsequent laboratory analyses revealed that more than half the plankton samples (young fish and their food) collected from surface waters were oil-contaminated. It was estimated that contamination covered 50 percent (80,000 square miles) of the survey area along the East Coast Continental Shelf; 80 percent (280,000 square miles) of the survey area in the Caribbean to the Gulf of Mexico; and 90 percent (306,000 square miles) of the survey area north of the Antillean Chain, extending roughly 500 miles north and south of the coasts of the Bahamas and the West Indies."

Scientific research such as that undertaken by Dr. Max Blumer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute indicates that the toxic fractions of oil spilled in ocean waters persist and accumulate in marine environments for long periods. At present the cumulative effects of such spills on all stages of marine life is poorly understood. However, the study recently released by NOAA establishes that oil pollution is a worldwide problem of vast proportions.

Construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline would needlessly add to the problem and possibly subject the Northeast Pacific Ocean to the

same fate as has been met in the Atlantic Ocean.

IV. Liability

If the trans-Alaska pipeline is to be built, an undertaking strongly opposed by the commercial fishermen I represent, then an important question is raised concerning the liability to those fishermen for damage to their fisheries. Since North Slope oil is regarded as a national asset that can partially satisfy the United States mushrooming demand for oil, it would be unfair to force the fishermen to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of its production and transportation to market. The trans-Alaska pipeline threatens both the fishermen's gear and the fish resource itself. The value of these fisheries may be substantially reduced and in some cases eliminated altogether.

We therefore urge the Congress to impose on the owners and operators of the trans-Alaskan pipeline and marine transport system absolute liability to commercial fishermen for damage to the value of their fisheries and fishing gear that results from pipeline operation and the marine transport of North Slope oil.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons set out in sections I through III, above, the Cordova District Fisheries Union, the United Fishermen of Alaska, and the Western Division of the National Federation of Fishermen oppose the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline and support the alternative of a common corridor across Canada for both an oil and natural gas pipeline that would deliver North Slope oil and natural gas to the Midwest and East Coast sections of the United States. We endorse pending legislation that would authorize independent studies of the Canadian alternative and would expedite negotiations with the government of Canada. We are confident that such studies and negotiations

will further recommend the trans-Canada alternative.

WASHINGTON, May 3

-

Construction of an oil pipeline from

Alaska through Canada will delay completion of a natural gas line from five to ten years, prolong serious gas shortages, add billions of dollars to construction costs, and increase consumer gas bills by $250 million to $500 million a year, Congress was told today. Wilber H. Mack, a Detroit gas industry executive, testified before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee in opposition to proposed legislation which would require extensive studies of the possibility of transporting Alaskan oil through Canada.

Speaking on behalf of the American Gas Association and the Independent Natural Gas Association of America, Mack, chairman of American Natural Gas Company, supported legislation which would authorize issuance of federal rights-of-way permits and make it possible to begin construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline at an early date.

Emphasizing that the oil pipeline must be built before gas

can be produced from Alaska, Mack said that delays in construction of the oil line from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez have already increased the cost of the gas line by several billions of dollars. Mack told the Committee that he and his company are actively participating with 24 other companies which are seeking authority to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska through Canada to the United States. "We estimate that each day that this project is delayed the

cost of the gas pipeline increases by more than $1,000,000," Mack said. "This is just the natural result of increasing wages

and costs of materials."

"If the oil pipeline is built through Canada the gas pipeline cannot be started until after it is completed," he said. "The two projects could not be financed or built at the same time." He pointed out that an oil line across Canada would extend for 3,200 miles, while the Trans-Alaska line is less than 900 miles in length. "The Canadian oil line would delay the gas pipeline for five

to ten years. The costs would increase by $1 billion to $2 billion, which would increase rates to gas consumers $250 million to $500 million a year. This would be a waste of the ratepayers' money, for there is no good reason why the oil line should not be constructed promptly in Alaska and the gas line built as soon as possible through Canada."