Environmental Protection 
Concern about fishery resources is a key factor 
in current efforts to upgrade water quality in the 
Nation and to protect estuarine and wetland areas. 
Fish kills and closing of fishing or shellfish areas 
are among the most dramatic indices of poor water 
quality. Repeated occurrences of such events helped 
build public support for the current water cleanup 
program that began in earnest in the early 1970s. 
On the negative side, announcements of fish con- 
tamination immediately and adversely affect sales. 
Those involved in recreational fishing have tra- 
ditionally been active supporters of environmental 
protection and improvement. The increase in rec- 
reational fishing in recent years has, therefore, pro- 
duced widespread concern about water quality and 
protection of fish habitats by this growing and vocal 
segment of the public. 
Environmental concerns are many. They include 
fear of excessive destruction of fishery habitats, 
questions about the long-term effects on reproduc- 
tion from some of the chemicals introduced into 
the marine environment, and concern about whether 
fluctuations in catches of various species may be 
related to ocean dumping, dredging, or other envi- 
ronmental alterations. 
Two recent cases involving the siting of energy 
facilities in coastal and offshore regions—a_pro- 
posed oil refi at Portsmouth, Va., and lease 
sales of Outer Continental Shelf sites for oil and 
gas duillings inthe Georses-BankTrouph——niave 
highlighted the issue of the conflicting uses of the 
oceans and the potential impacts upon fish and their 
habitats and the fishing industry. 
The Federal involvement in the proposed Ports- 
mouth, Va., facility centers around the requirement 
for an Army Corps of Engineers permit to construct 
a marine terminal for the tankers. The locations 
selected by the Hampton Roads Energy Company is 
a 620-acre site on the Elizabeth River near Nor- 
folk, Va. The site is within several miles of a rich 
shellfish area in the James River and relatively close 
to crab areas of the Chesapeake Bay. 
The Department of Energy supports the proposal, 
the city of Portsmouth is enthusiastic about it, and 
the Commonwealth of Virginia has given its ap- 
proval. In opposition are the Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The 
final decision is likely to be made by the Army 
Corps of Engineers after the case makes its way 
through regional office review. Backers or opponents 
are felt likely to sue whichever way the Corps 
decides. 
The Portsmouth proposal illustrates how complex 
environmental concerns about fishery resources be- 
come. Offsetting the danger to a $50 million annual 
oyster industry (an estimate by the Oyster Industry 
Associations) is the far greater economic impact of 
a refinery proposed to handle 175,000 barrels a day 
of oil imported from the Middle East in supertank- 
ers. One estimate of the project places its value at 
$550 million; the addition of the refinery would, it 
is estimated, increase the city of Portsmouth’s tax 
base by 50 percent.*” 
NMFS filed formal objection to the proposal June 
22, 1976, on several grounds (the large amount of 
dredge spoil involved, destruction of river bottom’ 
habitats, and waste runoffs from the plant), but pri- 
marily because of the danger which an oil spill 
represents to the James River oyster seedbeds in 
particular and marine life in general. NMFS recom- 
mends, in fact, against locating any major indus- 
trial facilities such as a refinery in productive and , 
fragile estuarine areas.°° It was these same oyster 
beds in the James River that were threatened by 
the chemical kepone a few years ago. 
The oyster beds have been described as the “sole 
commercially important source of seed oysters in 
the Bay region and (the source of) supply 75 per- 
cent or more of the seed which is transplanted to 
growing areas.” *7 
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in its rec- 
ommendation against issuance by the Corps of 
Engineers, stated, “. . . this Service believes the con- 
struction and operation of a refinery complex in the 
Hampton Roads area will result in a significant con- 
tribution to the long-term diminution of the area’s 
fish and wildlife resources and could, in the event 
of a single, major oil spill under certain conditions, 
result in the elimination of a significant regional 
shellfish industry.” °° 
The FWS concerns are four: the initial dredging 
and maintenance dredging, oil spills, wastewater 
discharge, and related impacts on the area as a 
result of the refinery. 
The Environmental Protection Agency’s objec- 
tions range from water quality considerations to 
effects of the refinery on air quality. 
The Portsmouth refinery application demonstrates 
several of the types of environmental concerns that 
may affect fisheries, namely dredging, handling of 
dredge spoil, industrial wastewater treatment, and 
the threat of oil in enclosed marine environments. 
* American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
Science February 10, 1978, p. 668. 
* Letter, NMFS regional office, Gloucester, Mass., to District 
Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Va., June 22, 
1976. 
*7 Memorandum, David H. Wallace, Acting Assistant Adminis- 
trator for Fisheries, NOAA, to Richard Frank, Administrator, 
NOAA, February 13, 1978. 
*8 Letter, David Riley, acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Boston, Mass., to District Engineer, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Va., August 27, 1976. 
IlI-21 
