Virginia and the Outer Continental Shelf problems, possibilities, and posture : a report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Zone
coastal
Injormab6n COASTAL ZONE FE8 6
Center INFORMATION CENTER
76' 75' 74P 73,

A
39 39'

-ND
V-1 R GI N I A A'
E
R, C 9@4 TI
E.'.'.N'T L SHELF

30
J

. .... .......

...... . . ...

5r
55.
PfiQBLEIVIS, POSSIBILITIES
V
AND POSTURE

36q
IX

GC
85.2
N8
V57 75* 7de 73*
1974

VIRGINIA

AND THE

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF:

PROBLEMS, POSSIBILITIES,

AND

POSTURE

Report

of the

Outer Continental Shelf Advisory
04
C-1 Committee
C-17
(Ad Hoc)

November, 1974

COMMCINWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT

GERALD P. MCCARTHY
ADMINISTRATOR November 7. 1974
P0. Box 790
RICHMOND 23206

Honorable Earl J. Shiflet
Secretary of Commerce and Resources
Commonwealth of Virginia
910 Capitol Street
Richmond, Virginia 23212

Dear Secretary Shiflet:

I forward herewith the report of the Outer Continental Shelf Advisory
Committee prepared in response to your request for a proposed State policy
for the Commonwealth related to the development of the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS).

The report states that damage to the offshore environment is not
likely to be great, but warns of gaps in our knowledge of the inhabitants
and environment of the area, as well as the effects of oil spills upon them.
Thq possibility of a catastrophic spill, with its attendant effects upon
wetlands and beaches, must be considered. Permanent structures on the OCS
will interfere with navigation, and constrain commercial fishing in the
area, although they may act as artificial reefs, enhancing sport fisheries.

The entire OCS area of study, understandably, poses many legal and
governmental problems that could not be addressed within the time con-
@traints of this project, especially in view of yet to be determined rights
in all the lands and natural resources of the bed of the Atlantic Ocean
beyond three geographical miles from the coastline; nevertheless, these
problems-impinge upon the area of state and local concern. Our control of
the OCS lands is not assured. The Committee, therefore, believes that our
opportunity to control potential development from the discovery of oil and
gas on the OCS of Virginia is dependent, in part, upon the outcome of the
Commonwealth's offshore litigation now pending in the United States Sup-
reme Court. Accordingly, alternative recommendations are proposed by I the
Committee, recommendations that are based upon the degree of Virginia s
control of the waters and lands adjacent to the onshore areas.
The report recommends that measures to control development should in-
sure preservation of the traditional lifestyles and values of Virginia's
coastal citizenry. In this regard, the Committee believes that the state
should develop criteria for the siting of facilities with greater than
local impact.

Earl J. Shiflet
November 7, 1974
Page two

The Committee is cognizant of the complexities of our subject, and
offers this report in the hope that its recommendations will catalyze
the necessary action to fulfill the expectations initiated by your re-
quest. It is the hope of the Committee that this report can be useful
to you, the Governor and interested members of the General Assembly in
order that the entire spectrum of OCS problems and proposals can be
given early consideration.@

On behalf of the Committee I thank you for the opportunity to c6n-
tribute to Virginials preIparation for meeting the challenges posed by
the development of the Outer Continental Shelf resources.

incerel

Gerald P. McCarthy
Chairman

GPM:dja
Enclosure

PREFACE

The Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Committee was

established by the Secretary of Commerce and Resources, Earl J.

Shiflet,, in July, 1974. This action was taken based upon the

realization that the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) was

a likely area for the development of offshore Pil and gas re-

sources, and that such development could have profound and far

reaching impacts upon the Commonwealth. Such impacts could

either be beneficial or detrimental or both, depending greatly

upon the preparations made by the Commonwealth beforehand. Accor-

dingly, Secretary Shiflet charged the OCS Advisory Committee to

consider all facets of the situation., and to prepare a report

recommending a posture for the Commonwealth.

The following report represents a first step in an

effort to engender debate and discussion of the issues involved

in the question of OCS development. It is the feeling of the.

committee that, while further discussion is necessary, and en-

couraged, on some particulars, there is general consensus on the

content, conclusions,, and recommendations presented herein.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Gerald McCarthy

Council on the Environment

Chairman

Mr. J. Frank Alspaugh Mr. Douglas B. Fugate
Director Commissioner
Division of Industrial Department of Highways
Development

Mr. Gerald L. Baliles Dr. William J. Har gis, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General' Director
Office of the Attorney Virginia Institute of Marine
General Science

Mr. Rob R. Blackmore Admiral E. P. Holmes
Director Executive Director
Commission of Outdoor Virginia Port Authority
Recreation

Dr. James L. Calver Mr. Eugene T. Jensen
Commissioner Executive Secretary
Division of Mineral State Water Control Board
Resources

Mr. Charles A. Christophersen Mr. William R. Meyer
Director Executive Director
Division of State Planning State Air Pollution Control
and Community Affairs Board

Mr. James Douglas Dr. M. I. Shanholtz
Commissioner Commissioner
Virginia Marine Resources Department of Health
Commission

Mr. John Pleasants

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Project Leader

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is the result of the joint efforts of the agencies
of the Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Committee. All made valuable
contributions. Worthy of special note was the work of the personnel
of the agencies designated as "core" agencies in the preparation of
this report. These were:

Mr. Julian Alexander
State Water Control Board

Mr. Donald LeVan
Division of Mineral Resources

Mr. Gerald L. Baliles
Office of the.Attorney General

Mr. Edward Holm
Division of Industrial Development

Mr. James Douglas
Marine Resources Commission

Mr. B. C. Leynes
Division of State Planning and Commiinity Affairs

Mr. John Pleasants
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(Lead Agency)

The core agencies furnished the authors for the individual
sections,, and to these people is due a large share of the credit
for this report. They, and the sections they wrote, are as follows:

Dr. Donald Boesch - VIMS
III - Offshore Area

Mr. Thomas Bernard - VIMS
IV - Interface Area

Mr. Daniel Jones - DSPCA
Mr. Keith Buttleman - DSPCA
V - Onshore Area

Mr. Gerald Baliles - Attorney General's Office
Appendiz A - U.S. v. Maine, et al

Section I - Executive Summary, and Section II - Background,
were written by the project leader, who also served as editor. The
remaining section, VI - Recommendations,, was.a group effort.
In addition to these "core" agency personnel valuable assis-
tance was made by the following individuals:

Mr. Bill Craft
Virginia Port Authority

Mr. 0. H. Adams
State Health Department

Mr. James F. McInteer
Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries

Mr. Henry J. Hughes
State Air Pollution Control
Board

Mr. Carl Schreiber
Commission of Outdoor Recreation

Input from the petroleum industry was provided by Dr. Wilson
Laird of the American Petroleum Institute, who not only provided
voluminous amounts of literature,, but also traveled to Gloucester
Point to discuss the situation with members of the core agencies.
His assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

Mrs. Virginia Camechis patiently typed and retyped the many
drafts and the final copy.

Mr. W. S. G. Britton and the Virginia Department of Highways
are responsible for reproduction of the document.

To all these people goes the sincere thanks of the project
leader. Lady and gentlemen, it has been my pleasure.

John B. Pleasants
Virginia Institute of
Marine Science
Project Leader

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Committee . . . . . . .

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ii. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Offshore Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

IV. . Interface Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

V. Onshore Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

VI. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Appendix A U.S. v. Maine, et al . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Executive Summary

The possibility exists for the discovery of both

oil and gas off the coastline of Virginia. The area of

interest is called the Baltimore Canyon Trough, which is

near the edge of the continental shelf in our.waters. This

report attempts to evaluate the impact of such a discov5@ky

on Virginia and to make plausible recommendations for action

by the Commonwealth to control any resulting development,

both offshore and on.

The area of our concern for purposes of this report

has been divided into three sections as follows:

offshore - from the edge of the shelf to the

three mile limit of the marginal sea

Interface - from the three mile limit to the upper

of the limit of the wetlands, and

onshore - from the upper limit of the wetlands

inland

The quantity of oil and gas on the Outer Continen-

tal Shelf (OCS) - or even its existence - is unknown. We

have assumed a major find on the assumption that if our

posture is adequate for a large find, it will also prove

sufficient for anything less. Other necessary assumptions

are also made, including:

(1) Development of related industry onshore will

take place on the Eastern Shore, in Hampton

Roads, or in the York River entrance.

(2) Leasing by the Federal government could begin

as early as late 1975.

One of the primary facets of the problem of OCS

development is in the yet unanswered question of ownership.

Virginia is party to a suit against the Federal government

(U.S. v. Maine, et al.) for title to the continental shelf

to a distance of one hundred miles. Should the Supreme Court

rule in favor of the states, all royalties, rents, and bonuses

from the leasing of OCS oil lands would accrue to the common-

wealth, but a mechanism within the state government would have

to be established to handle these complex affairs.

The United States has become increasingly dependent

on foreign petroleum. This dependence will continue, but the

development of OCS oil and gas could serve to reduce the rate

of growth of these imports. This would have a favorable

effect on our balance of payments. If petroleum is brought

ashore from the OCS by pipeline, it would likely be environ-

mentally less damaging than if an increasing number of tankers

were used.

Currently, about one eighth of our domestic oil and

gas production,is from offshore wells, largely in Louisiana

-and California. Many foreign countries also exploit their

OCS areas. There have been only four spills of greater than

5,000 barrels from the more than 17,000 wells drilled at sea.

A recent study by the federal Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) estimates very little probability of oil from a spill

in Virginia's OCS area impinging on the coast. The most

likely month for such an occurrence is August, and the prob-

ability then is five percent. This has been questioned by

.some scientists.

Further, oil was spilled in great amounts on Vir-

ginia's coast during World War II and has had no readily

apparent long-term effects.

Also to be considered, however, are the effects

of chronic hydrocarbon pollution in minute amounts on the

biota of the OCS area. These effects are largely unknown.

By-products of drilling may also have localized effects.

The possibility for financial benefits of consider-

able importance accruing to the state is excellent if oil or

gas are found off our coast. Jobs will be created not only

in the oil industry itself, but in supporting industries, as

well as secondary development such as restaurants, shopping

centers, and housing.

Against these benefits must be weighed the possi-

bility of environmental damage, which could affect such

established industries as tourism and commercial fishing.

Other costs would be incurred in the area of public services.

The major concerns by area are as follows:

Offshore Area

(1) The incorporation of oil,in sediments either

through the catastrophic or chronic discharge

of petroleum to the environment.

(2) Sub-lethal effects of chronic discharges of

petroleum.

(3) The effects of oil spills on sea birds.

Interface Area

(1) The effects of large scale dredging if new

port facilities are developed. The disposal

of spoil is also of concern.

(2) Effluents, wetlands destruction, water usage

and the increased chance of spills of refined

products due to location of satellite indus-

tries in the Interface area.

(3) The effects of a spill of refined products in

Chesapeake Bay. This could seriously affect

the estuary for up to five years. A spill of

refined or crude oil could severely affect

tourism at Virginia Beach if it reached shore,

and could have serious effects on the water

bird population.

(4) Present techniques for cleaning up oil spills
onshore Area are not satisfactory, especially in rough seas.

(1) Uncontrolled development, particularly on the

Eastern Shore.

(2) Air and water pollution from industrial and

secondary development.

(3) Water demand to support the projected develop-

ment.

(4) The requirements for increased public services.

In order to control the situation, recommendations

are made as follows:

Overall Recommendations

(1) Insure compatibility between any OCS actions

and the currently evolving Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Plan.

(2) Oppose any drilling on OCS lands until an ef-

fective oil spill cleanup association similar

to those in other areas has been formed.

(3) Support research designed to fill the gaps in

our knowledge of the marine environment and

the effects of hydrocarbons on the biota, par-

ticularly in the offshore area.

(4) Formalize and continue the present OCS Advisory

Committee (ad hoc).

Recommendations for the Offshore Area

If Virginia is awarded control:

(1) Establish leasing, production, and inspection

regulations similar to those of the Federal

government.

(2) Assign responsibility for all OCS lands to a

state agency. The Virginia Marine Resource

Commission, if greatly expanded and properly

equipped and funded, might be a logical choice.

Alternatively, a new agency could be created.

Should the federal government be awarded control:

(1) Create an office to coordinate all contacts

between state and Federal agencies and industry

in regards to the OCS area.

(2) Support federal legislation requiring sharing

of monies received by the Federal government

from OCS lands.

Recommendations for the Interface Area

(1) Restructure the Wetlands Act to encourage plan-

ning instead of reaction on a case-by-case basis.

(2) Develop criteria for approval of permits for the

placing of structures, including pipelines, in

the marine environment.

(3) Control pipeline access through the Interface

area to keep the number of corridors to a mini-

MUM.

Recommendations for the Onshore Area

(1) Encourage and assist local governments to plan

for and regulate projected growth in their

areas.

(2) Conduct a study as to the use of any funds

derived from the OCS lands.

(3) Frame and enact legislation requiring the

state to increase its role in planning for

and controlling siting of developments, such

as refineries, of regional as opposed to local

impact.

Background

Scope of the Study

This report concerns itself with the impacts upon

Virginia and Virginians of the possible exploration for, and

exploitation of petroleum resources on the Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS) lying to the east of our state. It further rec-

ommends courses of action to control the development of these

resources as well as that of the possible supporting indus-

tries which may be based in our state. -

In order to address these problems, this report

will discuss our current coastal environment, the effects

of drilling, the laying of pipelines, and air and water pol-

lution that could be caused by industrial and secondary

development on shore. The possible effects of catastrophic

and chronic oil spills will also be considered.

The social effects will be addressed. As an exam-

ple, should a predominantly rural area become the setting

for a refinery or a large logistical support operation, the

social implications--the changing lifestyles, patterns of

employment, the arrival of large numbers of outsiders--might

create problems with which the local area is ill equipped to

cope.

Legal problems will be discussed., These include

consideration of the outcome of the court case (U.S. v.

Maine, et al) to which Virginia is party, as well as the

possibility of future decisions by the upcoming Law of the

Sea Conference to be held in 1975, which may increase the

breadth of the territorial sea.

The economic effects of the development of the OCS

will also be considered.

To facilitate this study, we have divided the area

of concern into three geographic areas as follows:

Offshore Area - This is defined as extending from

the outer limits of exploitation up to the

three mile limit of the marginal sea.

Interface Area - This area covers the three mile

marginal sea and extends inland to the upper

limits of the wetlands as defined by Virginia's

Wetlands Act of 1972 (one and one half times the

tidal range above mean low water).

Onshore Area - This includes everything landward of

the upper limit of the wetlands.

Each area will be discussed in detail in separate

sections of this report.

Assumptions

There are many factors involved in the development

of the OCS which are at this point in time completely inde-

terminant. Basic to the entire study, of course, is the

question "Is there oil off Virginia's Coast and, if so, how

much?" Since there has been no known exploratory drilling

to date, this question cannot be positively answered at pre-

sent. This and other presently unquantifiable factors led

to the necessity of making certain assumptions. Since the

entire report is based on these assumptions, it seems logical

to state them here.

For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that:

(1) The area of the petroleum discovery considered

will be somewhere off the coast of the middle

Atlantic States, most importantly between
latitudes 36 32'N and 38 05'N, and will be on

the continental shelf or slope.

(2) The volume of production will be in the high

range of possibility, on the order of .75

million barrels per day by the year 1985, and

1.5 million barrels per day by 2000. Gas dis-

coveries will produce on the order of .9 billion

cubic feet per day by 1985, and 3.6 billion

cubic feet per day by 2000.(1)

(3) Development or related industry will take place

on the Eastern Shore, in the Hampton Roads area,

and possibly to some degree in the York River

entrance area. The year 1985 is the target year

for which impacts are assessed.

(4) If the State should be granted title to 100

miles of the OCS., leasing for exploratory

drilling would likely begin sometime in late

1976 or early 1977. If the federal govern-

ment is assigned control, leasing might begin

as early as January 1976. Based on these

sta rting dates, the following schedule is

assumed.

OCS Title Holder
Virginia Federal Govt.
Action

Leasing 1977 1976

Exploratory Drilling 1978 1977

First Production 1981 1980
Platforms

(5) The years of 1986 and 1987 are assumed to cover

the period of peak construction effort.

(6) The period of production will be on the order

of 30 to 40 years.

Discussion

During its industrial era, our contry has always

had access to abundant, inexpensive energy. Consequently,, we

have developed a society that is centered upon this abundance.
We are the world's most mobile people. Our automobiles are

more numerous and larger than those of other countries. We,
constituting about 1/17th of the population of the earth,
utilize nearly 1/3rd of the world's energy. Of this, approx-

imately 78 percent comes from oil and gas. (1) Energy

consumption in the U.S. has doubled in the past thirty years

on a per capita basis. By 1985, total consumption may be

twice what it is today.

With this in mind,, it is unfortunate that we have

become increasingly dependent on imported petroleum. This

fact was brought sharply home to us during the winter of

1973-74, when the Arab Oil Embargo lowered speed limits,

thermostats, rate of production and morale.

The end of the embargo, however, did not mean the

end of the supply problem. The petroleum was there, all

right, but the price had quadrupled. Even without price

increases, economists had predicted problems with our bal-

ance of payments vis-a-vis the Arab world due; to our soaring

demand for oil. With the increases, these problems become

even more acute.

All predictions indicate that continued petroleum

imports will be required, whether or not the OCS resources

are developed, at least until 2000. This will be despite

any savings that may result from even very stringent con-

servation measures. Our best approach to closing the gap

between supply and demand therefore consists of reducing

dependence upon imports to the maximum extent practicable

by increasing domestic production to complement present or

potential sources of energy such as coal, shale oil, geo-

thermal, and nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion, which pro-

mises clean, nearly inexhaustible energy, may be the long

term solution.

In our current situation, however, the environ-

mental trade-off appears,to be:

(1 Increase imports of foreign crude oil.

This implies either a much greater number

of standard tankers, or the establishment

of deepwater ports to handle VLCC (Very'

Large Crude Carriers). If standard tankers

are chosen, transportation costs will be

much higher than for VLCC, and the risk of

spills in inshore estuarine waters is much

more severe. If VLCC are chosen, the fuel

must either be transshipped at a deepwater

port to smaller tankers that can enter our

ports, or pipelines from single point mooring

systems or islands must be laid. Dredging

channels for VLCC is considered impracticable

due to the depths (on the order of 100 feet)

required.

(2) Develop our OCS petroleum resources. This

involves certain environmental risks, includ-

ing the laying of pipelines, but reduces the

number of tankers entering port, as well as

promoting our national independence of foreign

oil and having a beneficial effect upon our

balance of payment. Some increase in importa-

tions may still be required, however.

Against this background, the United States under

Presidential direction has embarked'on a program to develop

independence of outside energy sources by 1985. As an im-

portant part of this drive for independence, it has been

decided by the federal government to increase drastically

- 12

the acreage of the continental shelf available for leasing

to ten million acres in 1975. At the time of the Presiden-

tial energy message (23 January 1974) in which the tripling

of the original OCS leasing was directed, a commitment was
made to conduct an environmental study by the federal Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) prior to any leasing. This

study has been completed, and forms a very valuable source

book for this report.(l)

It is important to understand at this point that
there is nothing new or untried about offshore"drilling.

In 1972, some 12% of our domestic petroleum production and

13% of our natural gas production was from offshore wells,

and many foreign countries as well depend upon American

developed equipment and expertise in the exploitation of

the petroleum resources of their continental shelves.(l)

According to Mr. Charles D. Mathews, President of the

National Ocean Industries Association, over 17,000 wells

have been drilled at sea. Of these, only four have had

spills in excess of 5,000 barrels. He feels, to be fair,

this very small percentage should be considered when one

contemplates the possibility of an oil spill affecting the

coast. As an example, the CEQ study gives as the greatest

possibility of oil from the southern end of the Baltimore

Canyon Trough reaching shore as five percent in the month

of August.(l) If we follow Mr. Mathews' argument, this five

percent should be multiplied by the chance of the spill oc-

curring in the first place, which would give a nearly negli-

gible chance of oil impingi ng upon the coast.

oil spills upon o"ur coast are not unknown. During

World War II, about four million barrels of oil were released

by torpedoed tankers and other ships off our A@lantic and

Gulf Coasts. No clean-up effort was made due to the press

of wartime activities. Although no baseline data are avail-

able, and sub-lethal effects are unknown, there was no readily

apparent long term damage from this massive pollution.(4)

Estimates of resources available on the Atlantic

Continental Shelf vary widely, but are in the range of 5 to

20 billion barrels of economically recoverable crude oil,

and 55 to 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.(l)

The most likely portion of the continental shelf

off the middle Atlailtic States for the discovery of petro-

leum is known as the Baltimore Canyon Trough. The trough,

which is a depression in the basement rock in which a thick

layer of sediment has been deposited, commences at about 401

north latitude (roughly the latitude of Philadelphia). It

parallels the edge of the continental shelf with a.bulge

towards the mouth of Delaware Bay. At about the Virginia-

Maryland boundary it crosses the edge of the shelf going sea-

ward to the south.

The trough, then, is in somewhat the shape of the

cross section of a shallow bowl, with the base of the bowl

off Delaware Bay. Here the trough seems to reach its

greatest depth and consequently here the area of the thick-

est sediments is found. According to Dr. Wilson Laird of

the American Petroleum Institute, this is the area of predom-

inate interest.(5) The trough continues down into our waters

and though the sediments are not as thick here, considerable

interest remains.

As previously stated, there has been to date no

reported exploratory drilling on the'Atlantic OCS of the

United States. However, off the coast of Canada, in similar

sedimentary deposits on the Nova Scotia Shelf, 89 exploratory

wells have been drilled. These indicate the presence of

hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas and natural gas liq-

uids. At the time of the preparation of the CEQ report, four

wells had indicated commercial quantities.(l)

The prospective resources of the Atlantic OCS must

be viewed against the national supply of, and demand for

petroleum. During 1973 the situation was as follows:

1973 CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS DATA

Crude Oil Natural Gas
(Thousand Barrels) (Million Cubic Feet)

Domestic Production 3,360,903 22,647,559

Total Consumption *4,549,734 22,965,914

Imports:

Crude Oil *1,183,996 1,032,901
Unfinished Oils 50,161 (Canada accounted for
Plant Condensate 37,475 99.5% of the total
Refined Products 991,891 imports above.)

*Preliminary Figure - Subject to Change - Final Figures will
not be available until January 1975.

Source: U.S. Bureau of mines

Transportation of petroleum or natural gas resources

from the area of their discovery to shore will of course be

of crucial importance to any study of the impact of the develop-

ment of the OCS. The means employed for such transportation

depend greatly upon the size of the resource to be transported.

In the case of oil, a large discovery would dictate the use of

pipelines; in line with our basic assumption, this is the prog-

nosis for our shelf. Tankers or barges are utilized for small-

er amounts and, as well, may be used in the early stages. it

is not clear at what level of resource recovery pipelines be-

come economically viable, but the savings accruing through the

use of a pipeline must amortize the line within a reasonable

period of time (on the order of twenty years).(5) Natural gas

will in any case require pipelines, since no technology cur-

rently exists for liquifaction at sea for transport by tankers.

- 16 - I

Pipelines have much to recommend them from an envi-

ronmental standpoint once they are in place. Their record as

regards spillage is generally excellent as compared to tankers.

Burial of pipelines which are laid in less than two hundred

feet of water is now required by the regulations of the U.S.

Geological Survey. Of course, the area affected by dredging

for pipelines is miniscule when compared to the total area

of the shelf. On shore, it is most common to lay pipelines

in wetlands in dredged canals. This can obviously cause

serious local environmental damage by disrupting drainage

patterns and burying the biota as well as physically remov-

ing it. Turbidity, variations in salinity and changes in

current flows can also result.

A further possibility to be considered is that of

temporarily storing petroleum at sea in the area where it is

produced. This may be done in elevated, floating, or bottom

standing depots. The first is quite limited in size. The

floating storage barges currently in use may hold as much as

one million barrels, and be secured to a single point mooring

system (SPM), which also serves as a loading/unloading fa-

cility.(l)

The bottom standing systems may be completely sub-

merged, as in the Persian Gulf, or a surface-piercing type

similar to Ekofisk in the North Sea, which also has a capa-

city of one million barrels. Both of the above systems employ

single point mooring for loading and discharging their contents.

As a final thought, the problem of transportation of

17 -

refined products from Virginia must be weighed. These re-

fined products (such as number 2 fuel oil) are far more

hazardous to the marine environment than crude oil or gas,

and consideration must be given to the method of their re-

moval from areas in the Commonwealth where they may be pro-

duced. Barges, tankers, trucks, tank cars and pipelines are

all possibilities.

Description of the Area

The area of our primary concern is,between Cape Cod

and Cape Hatteras, named "The Virginian Sea" by Captain John

Smith circa 1607. Particularly, of course, we are interested

in that portion that lies off the ocean coastline of Virginia.

When one contemplates the possibility of the use of barges or

tankers to transport petroleum, plus the possibility of

effluents from supporting construction, it becomes apparent

that some consideration must also be given to Chesapeake Bay,

and at least the lower James and York rivers. The description

in this section is intended to be general, with more detailed

discussions contained in succeeding sections of the report.

Essentially, the continental shelf off our coast

is gently sloping and relatively smooth. There are some sand

ridges separating troughs wherein the sediment tends to be

finer. These systems are usually oriented parallel to the

coast, and are the result of the actions of waves and cur-

rents. There are patches of shell, sand, gravel and mud.

The slope is much steeper as it descends to the

abyssal floor, and rocky projections are frequent.

The biota is varied, and many sport and commercial

species are represented, including the American lobster in

the rocky cover of the slope. The shelf itself produces surf

clams, several species of flounder, sea bass, scup, hake, and

other commercial species. The superjacent waters produce tuna,

dolphin, bluefish and mackerel, as well as menhaden. Much of

the area is used as a spawning grounds for several marine

species, with a great fan shaped deep current acting as a

transport system to carry the larval forms into the Chesapeake

Bay. Although exact parameters for this inward flowing cur-

rent are not known, the overall concept must be kept clearly

in mind, since the implications for the eventual transport

of deep offshore pollutants into the bay are clear.

Additionally there are many varied species of plank-

ton, seasonally dense, which are the base of the food web, and

great numbers of benthic organisms which, while not commercially

exploitable, are of vital importance in the overall scheme.

The oceanic coast of Virginia is divided into two

parts by the entrance to Chesapeake Bay. The northern part is

characterized by a chain of barrier islands protecting exten-

sive salt marshes from the Atlantic Ocean, with associated

lagoons and winding creeks. Since there is relatively little

fresh water inflow to the system, the salinities are usually

fairly high, ranging upwards from about 18 parts per thousand

to normal sea salinity of 35 parts per thousand. The area is

in a nearly natural state, and most of the barrier islands are

in the hands of the federal government,-The Nature Conservancy

or the state.

19 -

The beach front south of the bay entrance is a long

continuous beach, the greater portion of which is devoted to

the tourist industry, and well developed for that purpose.

Chesapeake Bay is an estuary, which implies the

mixing of fresh water from rivers with the heavier saltier

water from the ocean. The bay follows the classic pattern

of estuaries, with fresher water flowing seaward on the sur-

face, and saltier water moving upstream along the bottom.

Due to the effects of the earth's rotation, one finds saltier

water along the eastern shore as opposed to the western bank.

The entire system moves in and out with the ebb and flow of

the tide. Virginia's three great rivers--the James, the York,

and the Rappahannock--enter the bay from the west, as does

the Potomac, which lies largely within the state of Maryland.

The rivers are estuaries themselves and grow less saline as

one proceeds upstream. They also follow in general the

classic estuarine pattern described above.

The bay floor is relatively smooth and flat, with

its deepest portion following the river bed of the ancient

Susquehanna. The bay is actually the drowned valley of this

river and in fact, the Susquehanna still provides about 50

percent of the annual freshwater input to the bay.

The bay is extremely shallow for its width. As a

comparison, if the width of the paper upon which this is

written is taken as the width of the bay, the thickness of

the sheet is relatively greater than the bay's depth. All

along the bay shore there are extensive areas of shallows

- 20

and wetlands upon which the productivity of the bay depends

to a great degree. This is particularly true of the western

shore.

There are many commercial species dependent upon

the bay and its wetlands at,some point in their life cycle.

Rockfish, shad, herring, croaker, spot, flounder, bluefish,

menhaden, blue crabs, oysters, clams, scallops--the list is

very extensive. All are important to Virginia's economy,

and all could be affected by the chronic or catastrophic

release of hydrocarbons.

The oyster industry, one of the most valuable of

Virginia's commercial fisheries, is particularly vulnerable

to any disruptions in the James River, since the seedbeds

there produce the majority of the seed oysters upon which

the industry depends.

The land environment in the area of our concern

is also of importance, since it is here that development to

support the exploitation of OCS resources will occur.

The Eastern Shore is a peninsula flanked on the

west by Chesapeake Bay, and on the east by the Atlantic.

It is flat, with a maximum elevation in the area of 20 feet.

The sea side is bounded by a chain of sandy barrier islands,

largely unspoiled, to which the only access is by boat. Be-

hind these islands are extensive areas of shallows and salt

marsh, drained and divided by nearly numberless winding

creeks and channels.

The bay side of the shore has long beaches and low

headlands, with many small inlets and creeks, which contain

wetlands of varying salinity regimes. These, as previously

mentioned, are important in the food web, but are not nearly

as extensive as those on the other side of the peninsula.

Fishing and agriculture are the traditional employ-

ments of residents of the Eastern Shore, and such manufac-

turing and trade as occurs is related primarily to natural

resources such as fruit and vegetable canning, and seafood

and fowl processing. Tourism is also important to the area.

The Hampton Roads area (which is considered here

to consist of the cities of Hampton, Newport News, Virginia

Beach, Norfolk,, Portsmouth,, Chesapeake, and Suffolk) is basi-

cally a large urban center surrounded by rural areas contain-

ing smaller urban centers. Considerable port-r elated activity

is based upon the famous port of Hampton Roads at the con-

fluence of the James River and Chesapeake Bay. The federal

government is also heavily involved here, with the Norfolk

naval complex the largest in the world. Manufacturing, tour-

ism, seafood, wholesale and retail trade, and agriculture also

play important parts.

The Lower York River area (here considered to encom-

pass parts of York County and Gloucester County) is a curious

mixture of both preceding areas. It is rural in nature, but

with some industry. There is an extensive area under the con-

trol of the Federal Government, but little manufacturing. Sea-

food is harvested here, and tourism is very important. Here,

too, is Virginia's only refinery (AMOCO, at Yorktown), with a

- 22

current capacity of 50,000 barrels per day.

Legal Aspects

In 1969, the state of Maine assigned certain explo-
ratory rights to a privat e corporation beyond the three mile

limit. A suit was thereupon brought against the state by the

United States, to which the twelve other Atlantic Coastal
States became party, to determine rights on the Continental

Shelf beyond the three mile territorial limit. Virginia, re-
presented by the Attorney General's Office, has taken a lead-

ing role in these proceedings. The matter is still in dispute;

the Special Master appointed by the Supreme Court of the United

States has recently fileda report recommending that the posi-

tion of the federal government be sustained. The Court has

called for briefs from the states and from the federal govern-

ment,, all of which are to be filed before December 31, 1974.

The case is expected to be argued in January or February, 1975,

with a decision to be announced by June. For a full explana-

tion of the legal issues involved, see Appendix A.

As a secondary consideration, a series of inter-

national conferences on the Law of the Sea are currently

underway, the first (at Caracas, Venezuela) having recently

been completed. While there were no concrete results, one

of the items under consideration involved the possible

establishment of an internationally recognized limit of

twelve miles for territorial waters. It is felt that this

will again be put forward (probably as some part of a pack-

age proposal) when the Law of the Sea Conference reconvenes

in Geneva in 1975. Although there is a possibility that this

limit will become a recognized part of International Law,. it

is not considered likely for purposes of this study. As a
matter of interest, however,!, it should be noted that there is

no indication of any petroleum resources within twelve miles

of the coast of Virginia, and according to Dr. Wilson Laird

of the American Petroleum Institute, there is nopresent in-

terest in drilling there.(5) There are of course other

mineral resources between the current limit of three miles

and twelve miles, with sand and gravel being an example.
As to the first consideration, should Virginia's

claim to one hundred miles of subaqueous lands be upheld,

all the bonuses, rents and royalties which would normally

accrue to the federal government from the leasing of drill-

ing sites would instead belong to the state. On the debit

side, the extensive leasing, regulating and monitoring pro-

cedures currently conducted by the Federal Government with

all the difficulties attendant thereto would become Vir-

ginia's responsibility. There is currently under study by
the Attorney General's Office a legal analysis of mechanisms

for these procedures in our state government, and the time

required for the development of such mechanisms is the reason

for differences in dates given in the assumed schedule (as-

sumption #4) between Virginia and the federal government.

In view of the above discussion,, legal

considerations at this junction preclude an analysis of

related legal problems involved with OCS development un-

til the matter of United States v. Maine et al., is re-

solved.

Meteorological Conditions

An obviously important aspect of the environmental

safety of OCS development is the meteorological conditions in

the area of our consideration. It should be stated here that

we believe the CEQ Study is misleading in regard to our area

since it apparently considers meteorological conditions on the

Middle Atlantic OCS to be more severe than those in the North

Sea.(l) While it may be true that our offshore area is sub-

ject to hurricanes, whereas the North Sea is not, the whether

conditions in general, particularly in the winter months, are

believed more severe there. Only two spills from offshore

structures of over one thousant barrels have been ascribed to

hurricanes.(1)

Bad weather has a greater controlling effect on

poloratory drilling than any other phase of the petroleum re-

covery operation, since mobile rigs are involved. Of course,

the threat of extreme weather would cause the temporary aban-

donment of any sort of OCS operation.

Prevailing winds in the Virginian Sea are generally

from the northwest during the fall and winter, and'from the

southwest in spring and summer. Wind speeds during summer

average six to eight knots and during winter eight to ten

knots. In summer., winds blow onshore in the daytime, and off-

shore at night.(2)

25 -

Temperatures are generally moderate in our area,

with the mean annual temperature at Norfolk being 53.50F.

At sea, temperatures usually are somewhat warmer in the

winter and cooler in the summer, due to the moderating

effect of the ocean. Temperatures seldom are in excess of

100'F, and_freezing is probable about one day in three from

November through March. Icing in mid Atlantic offshore areas

should not interfere with operations.(2)

Precipitation in the area of concern averages about

43 inches per year, and can be in the form of snow or freez-

ing rain in the winter months.

Fog occurs the year around, but is most frequent

during the autumn and winter months. Visibility can also be

severely restricted during periods of intense precipitation

such as summer thunderstorms or gales, and snow in the winter.

Days with less than five miles visibility occur from five to

fifteen percent of the time.(l)

.Seismic activity is considered moderate in the

Atlantic OCS, with the northern portion the most vulnerable.

According to the CEQ study, earthquakes of a magnitude of 7

on the Richter scale can be expected on an average of once

every 100 years in the Atlantic OCS area. Such a shock

could cause damage to or the failure of OCS structues in

the near vicinity.(l)

Tsunamis, which are long period waves caused by

seismic activity, have not to date been recorded in our area.

Such waves travel at enormous speeds (up to about 600 mph)

- 26

and are not noticeable in the open sea due to their low

amplitude there. They become very high in shallow water,

however, and can cause considerable damage onshore. There

is no record of tsunamis in the Virginian Sea, and they are

not expected to affect OCS operations there.(2)

Clearly, it is important that any plans for con-

struction and operation of OCS facilities include provisioii

for these and other environmental factors which would effect

safety and security of the facilities themselves, the per-

sonnel on them and the environments and resources within

their range of influence.

Introduction to the Report

The foregoing has been a general discussion of the

area that would be involved in the development of Virginia's

Outer Continental Shelf, and some of the prospects and prob-

lems that must be considered by those who hope to approach

the very real issues in a logical fashion. The three succeed-

ing sections will discuss in detail the geographic divisions--

Offshore, Interface, and Onshore--that have been previously

laid out. The last section in the report w ill make recom-

mendations for action to control the situation in order to

assure that Virginians, their property, and their environ-

ment are protected, and that resources are reasonably

managed.

LITERATURE CITED

1. council on Environmental Quality. 1974. OCS Oil and

and Gas - An Environmental Assessment. A report

to the President.

2. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Manage-

ment. N. D. Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Hard

Mineral Mining Operating and Leasing Regulations.

Draft Environmental Statement.

3. Statement of Charles D. Mathews, President, National

Ocean Industries Association. 1974. Hearing

before the Committee on Commerce, United States

Senate, Washington, D.C. Pursuant to S. Res. 222,

National Ocean Policy Study.

4. State of Dr. Maurice Ewing. 1973. Hearing on Offshore

Exploration. Council on Environmental Quality,

Washington, D.C.

5. Dr. Wilson Laird, American Petroleum Institute. Personal

Communication.

Offshore Area

A thorough consideration of the environmental

effects of development of OCS oil and gas resources should

take into account the existing environmental conditions of

the offshore area, the activities which may potentially irr.-

pact this environment, and the susceptibility and response

of the environment to these activities. Assessments of the

effects of OCS development on the offshore areas must nec-

essarily be imp recise and vague because of both the lack of

detailed knowledge of the continental shelf environment and

the inadequacy of knowledge of the effects of the contem-

plated developmental activities on this environment.

The Continental Shelf Environment off Virginia

The continental shelf environment off Virginia is

distinctly different from the coastal environments of the

Chesapeake Bay and Eastern Shore, in terms of physical,

chemical, geological and biological processes, yet the en-

vironments interact intimately--one affecting the other.

The offshore water masses in the Virginian Sea

affect the movement and characteristics of shelf waters.

The Gulf Stream, flowing well off our coast, affects the

direction and velocity of shelf currents, causing predom-

inantly southerly flows. Yet the tidal flux of water

through the Virginia Capes and into the Chesapeake Bay

also affects the flow of water--particularly bottom cur-

29 -

rents--over a wide expanse of shelf.

The temperature of shelf waters varies less than

the waters inshore. The salinity is of course higher and

more stable, but it too is influenced by Bay discharges.

Nutrients in shelf waters, which are necessary for phyto-

plankton growth, are in concentrations intermediate between

those in the rich coastal waters and those in the surface

waters of the open Atlantic. Nutrients are injected into

the shelf waters both from coastal discharges and "upwelling"

from nutrient rich deep sea waters.

The continental shelf is broadly covered by sand,

some of which is from relict beach deposits and some from

recent contributions from rivers. Much of this sand is in

frequent motion and is generally arranged in dynamic ridges

parallel to the shore. only near the edge of the shelf are

appreciable amounts of fine sediments--silts and clays--found.

Many of the fishes of the shelf also show a consid-

erable dependence on coastal waters and estuaries. Most are

migratory, moving inshore and offshore depending on the sea-

son. many have long north-south movement, also in season.

Some species move into the Bay and other estuaries to spawn,

and the young of others move inshore to grow up in the es-

tuarine nursery areas. The plankton is composed of oceanic

and estuarine forms as well as those types more or less con-

fined to shelf waters. The bottom-dwelling (benthic) orga-

nisms include not only some characteristic of the lower

Chesapeake Bay but also many northern species unable to

- 30

tolerate the summer temperatures of the Bay. There are also

specialized forms adapted to live in the dynamic sediments

of the shelf such as the commercially fished surf clams.

Activities in OCS Development Having Potential Environmental
Impact

This portion contains a discussion of activities in

the exploitation of offshore oil field which may impact the

environment adversely. The effects of some of these activities

are likely to be insignificant. on the other hand, the effects

of seemingly innocuous practices may be insidious, with cur-

rently unknown but far-reaching consequences. Thus, for com-

pleteness, all of those activities potentially affecting the

environment will be discussed without p,resumption of the re-

lative serious ness of their impact.

Not only must the effects of producing oil and gas

on the DCS of Virginia be considered, but also the more im-

minent effects of exploration, exploratory drilling, and

developmental drilling should be evaluated.

Exploration

Early in the exploratory phase of oil field devel-

opment extensive seismic surveys must be conducted to in-

vestigate the subsurface geological structure of the area.

From these surveys petroleum geologists determine if the

sedimentary environments represented in subsurface deposits

are conducive to the formation of petroleum and if faults,

domes and other features which trap and concentrate oil and

gas are present. In the past, seismic surveys involved

detonating explosive charges in the water resulting in

localized mortalities to fish and other marine organisms.

Nowadays, substitute energy sources, such as the propane-

oxygen 11guns" or high powered oscillators, are used. These

are far less damaging to the environment. Apparently, little

or no long term environmental damage was done by the seismic

techniques employed in our area, and much of the exploratory

seismic work has already been accomplished.

There is presently no method of positively iden-

tifying oil and gas deposits without actually drilling into

them. Drilling is not allowed by federal regulatory agencies

until after lease sales, and even coring requires a permit

from the U.S. Geological Survey. Exploratory drilling is

now generally carried out from drilling ships, jackup rigs,

or semisubmersable rigs. Drill cuttings and drilling mud

are usually disposed of overboard. These may smother bottom-

dwelling organisms and otherwise alter benthic habitats in

the vicinity of the drilling operations. Also, drilling mud

sometimes contains oil and various toxic components, notably

barium compounds. Such overboard discharge can presumably

be controlled by regulation if need be. Further, since ex-

ploratory drilling probes unknown geological structures, the

risk of blowouts is substantially higher during this phase

of oil field development than in the production stage, though

still a very small percentage. Debris from drilling opera-

tions may find its way overboard, either through accident or

carelessness, as it can from any maritime operation. Al-

though exploratory drilling in deep water need not result

- 32

in permanent obstructions, the operations themselves may

impair other uses of the OCS, such as commercial trawling

and transportation during the period of active exploration.

Development and Production

once significant discoveries are made by explora-

tory drilling, development and production activities may

proceed in the oil or gas field. Again, drill cuttings and

drilling mud disposal may have local environmental impacts.

Once the oil well is in production, "bleedwater"

brought up with and separated from the oil by "oil-water

separators" is usually disposed of overboard. Bleedwater

is usually of very high salinity and contains substantial

amounts of oil--on the order of 50 ppm. (parts per million).

Sand is also often brought up with the petroleum and it

must be separated and discharged overboard where it may

impact benthic communities. As previously stated, the risk

of blowouts is substantially less during production than in

the exploratory drilling and development stages. Nonethe-

less, production blowouts can occur if pressure in the well

suddenly increases. Production and development rigs are

usually built resting on the bottom, or sub-sea well heads

are employed. Too often the incentives to remove unused

or obsolete platforms and sea bed structures do not out

weigh the costs of removal, resulting in semi-permanent

obstructions to other uses of the OCS. Again, the acciden-

tal or careless loss of debris and refuse from production

rigs may impact the environment.

Transportation

If it is decided to transport oil and gas from

offshore production by pipeline, the emplacement of these

large diameter objects would,require considerable dredg-

ing with the accompanying disruption of local benthic habi-

tat. Further,@the risk always exists, particuarly on a high

energy coastline such as ours,for rupture of the lines. How-

ever, the record of offshore pipelines has been very good and

on past experience the ptobability of accidental breakage

seems small. Pipelines require maintenance which may involve

disruptions to bottom life and the long-term environmental

effects of abandoned pipelines should be considered. Section

IV- Interface Area contains a fuller discussion of pipelines

and their effects.

In the event that tankers or barges were used to

transport oil from the OCS to shore, oil spills from trans-

ferrals and accidental spills resulting from collisions and

groundings may pose a problem. Routine discharges of bilge

and ballast waters may also introduce oil into the offshore

environment. The use of deep draft tankers to transship oil

would necessitate deepening navigation channels extending

well past the three mile boundary, with the attendant prob-

lems associated with dredging. This, however, is considered

unlikely in our area as previously stated.

Shipment by vessel would also require offshore

storage facilities which could rupture, or might result in

more frequent small spills associated with handling oil.

They would also be an obstruction to other uses of the con-

tinental shelf.

Environmental Effects of OCS Development

Solid Wastes

Overboard discharge of drill cuttings, drilling mud

and sand from wells may cause smothering of the benthic orga-

nisms or benthic habitat alterations localized in scope.

This is not a necessary practice and can be,controlled by

regulation.

Potentially more serious is the introduction of

compounds which may be harmful in trace amounts. Drilling

muds can contain substantial quantities of refined oil--

similar to number 2 fuel oil--which is us ed to achieve pro-

per viscosity and lubrication. Because this oil is thor-

oughly mixed with the mud itself, much of it will be deposit-

ed on the bottom. It is well known that petroleum hydrocar-

bons can persist for long periods of time in bottom sediments

where they may affect benthic organisms, leach into bottom

waters, or be resuspended by currents. Chemical additives

in drilling muds include barium compounds which are toxic

to marine organisms. Widespread deposition of trace amounts

of these and other toxic compounds may result from drilling

activities.

Chronically Discharged Effluents

Discharges of bleedwater and other liquid wastes

from offshore production platforms would probably be diluted

so rapidly that any toxic effects on marine life would be

quite local. It is possible, however, that petroleum hydro-

carbons, trace metals, and other materials may be adsorbed

to suspended sediments and eventually deposited on the bot-

tom where they may concentrate and persist. Further, very

low concentrations (in the parts per billion range) may cause

sublethal effects on marine organisms. Particular concern

has been voiced over the possible effects of small concen-

trations of hydrocarbons on the ability of organisms to sense

low concentrations of other compounds which are important in

their feeding, mating and migration.

Oil Spills

Most concern and virtually all research about the

effects of spilled oil has centered on the intertidal or

coastal environment. For example, the Council on Environmen-

tal Quality based their assessment of the relative risks of

OCS drilling sites on the probability of spilled oil reach-

ing the shore. Whenever oil has been looked for in subtidal

sediments following a spill it has been found. There is

therefore no reason to preclude possible effects on offshore

benthic organisms resulting from blowouts, tanker spills,

pipeline leaks or other episodic inputs of oil. oil was

found in relatively deep water sediments following both the

Santa Barbara and Gulf of Mexico blowouts. The lack of ade-

quate consideration of effects of oil spills on offshore

organisms as well as of the effects of chronic discharges

are two deficiences of the CEQ's offshore impact analysis.

Further, it should be noted in passing that some

skepticism has been voiced by the National Academy of Sciences

regarding the validity of the mathematical models which allow-

ed CEQ to predict that the chance'of floating oil reaching the

shore of Virginia from OCS drilling sites is virtually nil.

The oceanographic and meterological data base on which these

predictions are based is inadequate and the model itself is

at variance with some of these data.

Those offshore organisms potentially most suscep-

tible to the effects of spilled oil are seabirds, which may

be coated with floating oil, organisms which live at the

air-sea interface (the neuston), and benthic organisms, be-

cause sedimental oil may concentrate and persist in the bot-

tom. Reliable predictions of effects, except perhaps on

birds, are not possible because of inadequate knowledge of

the offshore effects of previous oil spills.

Dredging

Dredging activities attendant to navigational

channels and pipeline placement may impact offshore orga-

nisms primarily through the removal of benthic habitats and

the suspension of sediment and associated compounds. Gene-

rally speaking these effects are not considered as serious

as they may be in inshore waters because bottom sediments

over much of the shelf are naturally dynamic and thus the

ability of most of the biota to recover from damage is

good. Further, shelf sediments are mostly sands, whereas

it is typically the finer particles which have adverse effects

if resuspended.

Extension of navigation channels onto the shelf

would, however, involve alteration of local benthic habi-

tats and would probably require frequent maintenance dre dg-

ing due to the dynamic nature of the bottom. As previously

mentioned, such dredging seems unlikely.

Obstructions and Debris

Habitat changes may occur where construction debris

and other material is jettisoned. The environmental effects

resulting would be localized and of unknown, but probably

minor, overall importance. Perhaps more important is the

obstruction to other uses of the shelf such as fishing and

transportation caused by semi-permanent or abandoned struc-

tures such as platforms, subsea well heads and pipelines.

It must also be mentioned that oil and gas rigs

have the capability of acting as artificial reefs and

attracting game fish. In Louisiana, "rig fishing" has

proved to be extremely productive, and charter boat opera-

tors as well as private vessels fish these rigs frequently.

In the case of Virginia.however, the area of interest is on

the order of seventy five miles offshore, which may pre-

clude or reduce such fishing.

Major Concerns

.The effects which are probably or potentially the

most serious include:

(1) The incorporation of oil in sediments, either

through the catastrophic or chronic discharge

of petroleum to the environment.

(2) Sub-lethal effects of chronic discharges of

petroleum.

(3) The effects of oil spills on sea birds.

Conclusions

The threats posed by OCS development to the environ-

ment and organisms of the offshore area of the Virginian Sea

are unknown. Assessments of impact such as that by the Coun-

cil on Environmental Quality have, in general, not given prop-

er consideration to effects on offshore environments. This

has probably been due to pressures to develop predictive

models and make definitive statements about impacts on little

known environments. It is not sufficient to base impact as-

sessments largely on the basis of the probability of spilled

oil reaching shore.

If exploitation is to proceed, strict regulation

to ensure environmental protection should be developed and

enforced. Specifically, spill prevention devices and regu-

lations need to be adequately policed, since some blowouts

in offshore oilfields elsewhere have followed inadequate

enforcement of the regulations by federal and industrial
author'ities. Standards must be set to regulate chronic

discharges from production platforms. To this end, ef-

fluent limitations are currently being developed by the

Environmental Protection Agency. However, these effluent

limitations are based exclusively on technological con-

siderations. Research is needed on the effects of these

discharges so that environmentally relevant discharge

standards may be implemented.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Interface Area

General Description

Although the Inte rface Area includes the subaqueous

lands out to the three mile limit, the impacts of offshore

oil activities will be felt primarily in the relatively shal-

low inshore areas and in the intertidal and wetlands habitats.

Major discussion in this section will therefore center on the

three above-mentioned subareas within the larger Interface

Area.

Virginia's shoreline, of which there is almost 5,000
miles, is best characterized by its variety.''This variety ex-

tends from the serene fragility of the barrier islands of the

Eastern Shore to the glittering strip of Virginia Beach, and

from the industrial activities of Hampton Roads to the quiet

productivity of Chesapeake Bay marshes. In its shoreline,

Virginia has a natural resource of inestimable value.

The Eastern Shore of Virginia is-a low-lying pen-

insula bounded on the east by a barrier island - marsh-bay

complex and on the west by a marsh-tidal creek complex.

Extensive and highly productive shallows occur on both

coasts and in the tributaries. The Eastern Shore contains

about 70% of Virginia's ocean front shoreline, and from

Wallops Island south it is the only portion of the eastern

barrier island chain (from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras) which

remains in its natural state. The Eastern Shore also con-

40 -

tains approximately 84,000 acres of wetlands, one-half of

the Commonwealth's total.(l) The entire complex fringing

the Eastern Shore must be considered a unique resource by

the Commonwealth. At the present time the barrier islands

are marked for conservation. The marshes, because of their

value to the seafood industries of the Commonwealth, are pro-
tected by the Virginia Wetlands Act of i972. The relativeiy

clean waters, complexed with the islands and marshes, are

used primarily by commercial and sport fishermen.(2)

In contrast to the Eastern Shore oceanfront, that

of Virginia Beach is quite commercialized. From Cape Henry

to Sandbridge, the beach is a highly active resort area with

only three exceptions, where military bases are present.

Despite a sometimes severe erosion problem, Virginia Beach

development has continued to mount. From Sandbridge to the

North Carolina line, however, the beach area and the lagoons

behind it are presently marked for conservation. The Back

Bay Wildlife Refuge and the planned False Cape State Park

are extremely valuable areas from this viewpoint.

The Back Bay area is approximately 45 sq. miles of

primarily marsh and shallow lagoons. Both this area and the

barrier island - marsh bay complex on the Eastern Shore are

invaluable to birdlife since they are integral parts of the

Eastern flyway, used each year by thousands of migrating

waterfowl.

The port of Hampton Roads includes the most highly

developed portion of Virginia's shoreline. Very little of

- 41

the shoreline of the Elizabeth River is unaltered and the

sediments in the river are highly contaminated from one

source or another. The northern side of the James River

is also highly developed in the Hampton Roads area but the

river itself is still important as a seed oyster and clam

producing area. Except for the Nansemond River, which

also appears to be headed towards heavy industrial develop-

ment, a few small tidal creeks, and the Ragged Island Marshf

most of the natural shoreline of the lower river has been

developed. Because of the rapid population growth of the
Hampton Road's area, the rivers are highly stressed by sewage

and other effluents. It is also important to note that the

channels of both Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth River are

scheduled for expansion or deepening, or both, in the near

future.

Except for its lower southern bank, which has

several industries and military establishments, the York

River retains its natural character with residential areas

spotted between large marsh areas and small tidal creeks.

Water quality is relatively good and the river supports

a considerable commercial seafood industry.

North of the York River the shoreline is char-

acterized by small fringing marshes and tidal creeks.

The natural character of the shoreline remains since

coastal development has taken the form of residential hous-

ing small commercial seafood operations, and small marinas.

In summary, the oil industry will have to compete

42 -

with a variety of other interests which are already estab-

lished on Virginia's shoreline. Because of the dependence

of the seafood industry on marshes, the Virginia Wetlands

Act controls wetland development. Most of the barrier is-

lands are owned by the federal government, the Commonwealth

or The Nature Conservancy. The tourist industry, primarily

centered around Virginia Beach, will take a very close look

at offshore oil development. Further, a large portion of

the citizens living along the shoreline will likely be opposed

to oil development because of the possibility of associated

pollution, real or imagined.

Discussion of Problems

A discussion of the problems of the interface zone

may best be accomplished by dividing the subject into six

lesser subjects and covering them individually. For this

purpose the following problems are considered as major:

Port Development

Effluent Effects

Tanker Traffic

Catastrophic Oil Spills

Oil Cleanup, and

Pipeline Effects

Each will be discussed in turn.

Port Development

It does not appear likely at present that OCS re-

lated offshore port development will take place within the

three mile limit because of the extensive dredging which

would be required, and because the preferred method of trans-

porting crude oil from offshore fields is by pipeline. As

previously stated, vessel transport will be employed only

if the fields are small. Port development will be needed,

however, for the staging of materials and men during explo.-

ration and construction periods and this is most likely to

occur on the Eastern Shore or the Hampton Roads area.

Most of the existing channels in the Hampton

Roads are adequate to handle the vessels necessary, but if

the Eastern Shore or undeveloped portions of Hampton Roads

are utilized, new channels will have to be dredged. In

this case, dredging and disposal of the dredged soil will

have a major impact.

Depending on the amount of dredging necessaryl

impacts may be in the form of destruction of benthos (bottom)

communities and fish feeding and spawning grounds, altered

salinity regimes and current patterns, destruction of marshes,

and interference with water column productivity and fish mi-

gration routes through increases in turbidity. Large amounts

of spoil from such dredging will have to be disposed of, and

this may well place more stress on wetlands a nd benthic habi-

tats, since these are the most economical disposal areas in

the short term.

Most of the impacts described above may be avoid-

ed if the state takes strong measures to insure that the oil

industry utilizes the existing port facilities and channels

of Hampton Roads and the Eastern Shore. With the planned

deepening of Hampton Roads to 55 feet and the facilities

which already exist, the adverse impact of port develop-

ment derived from OCS activities should be held to a mini-

MUM.

Effluent Effects

A large OCS oil or gas find will almost certainly

precipitate the establishment of various industries directly

and indirectly related to the oil industry. One can expect

such industries as oil refining, gas processing and petro-

chemical production as well as secondary development includ-

ing sewage treatment plants to locate as close as possible

to the oil fields. The primary impacts of these industries

on the interface will be in the areas of effluents, water use

and possible wetlands destruction.

The effluents from various refining industries

potentially could pose as great a threat to water quality

in the Commonwealth as the drilling and transportation of

crude oil, since it is generally recognized that refined

hydrocarbon products are more toxic than crude oils and that

petroleum processors are chronic pollutant contributors.(2)

Strict control of effluents will be required.

Very little research has been done in the area of

chronic hydrocarbon contamination and sublethal effects,

but it is known that chronic inputs can have significant

impacts in confined estuarine areas.(3) A large area of

saltmarsh vegetation was killed by refinery effluent at

Southhampton, England.(4) Another researcher reported bottom

- 45 - I

organisms in Los Angeles Harbor have been reduced to one

tolerant species of oil industry wastes.(5) In more open

areas where there is greater dispersion of the effluent,

the biological effects,where known, do not appear to be as

serious. Where chronic effects have appeared, such as in

Los Angeles Harbor and the Houston Ship Channel, not only

direct toxicity is involved but also depleted oxygen levels

due to high oxygen demand by contaminated sediments and

other oxygen consumers.

On the Eastern Shore, receiving waters are naturally

somewhat organically loaded and the interactions of other

variables such as stream morphology, freshwater inflows, ti-

dal forces and salinity make these streams less than satis-

factory as receiving waters.(6) Numerous shellfish beds are

found in waters surrounding the Eastern Shore and stringent

water quality standards and criteria have been set to protect

both general water quality and the quality of water required

to support shellfish and finfish. Any development by the oil

processing industry on the Eastern Shore, unless closely

controlled, could adversely affect the survival and quality

of fish and shellfish there because of the poor suitability

of the surface waters to receive effluents. This would have

substantial impact upon the seafood and recreational fisheries

of the area.

The fact remains, however, that the proximity of

the Eastern Shore to the continental shelf and the undevelop-

ed and therefore relatively inexpensive land available make

the area a prime development site for the oil industry.

This could drastically increase pressures to drain and fill

the marshes, and thus adversely affect the seafood and re-

creational fishing industries since marshes are directly

linked to seafood productivity and water quality.(7)

Lyle St. Amant has stated before the National Advisory

Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere that the greatest im-

pact of oil development on the Gulf coast was in the area

of filling and draining wetlands.

Satellite industry development in the Hampton

Roads area, if property sited, constructed, and operated,

might not have the adverse impact that it would on the

Eastern Shore because of the better flushing character-

istics of the James River estuary. It is apparent, how-

ever, that with approximately 50% of the shellfish grounds

in Hampton Roads presently condemned, additio n of further

improperly treated effluent could severely affect the James

River seed oyster beds and the seafood industry in Hampton

Roads. Tourism may also be affected, since spills might

reach beach areas such as Buckroe and Ocean View.

The Nansemond, Elizabeth and Pagan rivers, because

of low freshwater inputs, are either highly stressed at pre-

sent or unsuitable for large effluent loading. The Nansemond

and Pagan rivers have large marsh areas which are very impor-

tant to the lower James River system. It is possible that

these marshes along with others, such as the Ragged Island-

Candy Island complex, could be looked on as desirable develop-

- 47 - I

ment areas for housing or industry. Hopefully, the Wetlands

Act will control such development so that essential natural

habitat will be preserved.

The lower York River has experienced some water

quality problems associated with domestic and industrial

waste discharges. A new sewage treatment plant is planned

in the area, but water quality at this time is generally

good. This area does contain large wetlands, which may be

threatened by development because of a lack of suitable up-

land industrial sites.

In addition to increasing pressures on the environ-

ment in the form of wetlands destruction and effluent re-

leases, development of petroleum related industry will in-

crease the chances for spills of refined products. The

ef f ects of such spills are discussed more f ully below.

Tanker Traffic

It is difficult to project the effects of an off-

shore oil discovery on the number of tankers utilizing Vir-

ginia waters. As previously stated, however, it appears

that if a pipeline is used to transport the oil, the number

of tankers entering Hampton Roads might be smaller than if

no oil were discovered at all. Further, the transport of

refined products from refineries must be considered.

According to Porricelli(9), tanker and barge trans-

port of oil and oil products amounts for 30% of the oil re-

leased into the marine environment. The same study estimates

that 75% of.the spills from tankers are caused by human error

and 25% by mechanical failure. This record points to the

need for improved design of handling systems to prevent such

48 -

occurrences. The spills charged to mechanical failure account-

ed for a much larger volume of oil spilled even though there

were fewer of them. The newer pipelines which are better con-

structed than older ones and have built-in safety devices, have

an excellent record.

From a crude oil transportation point of view only,

an offshore discovery with pipeline transport of oil might

prove to be a lesser environmental risk than the increase in

tanker traffic which might occur if the oil, needed to meet

now planned refining capacity increases, had to be brought

in from other areas.

Catastro2hic Oil Spills

Even though the'literature on oil pollution is

voluminous, very few conclusions as to the effects of oil

in the marine environment are agreed upon by everyone in-

volved. Most of the work done to date has been concentrated

in the intertidal area; hence, very little is known of the

effects of oil on subaqueous organisms.. It is generally

conceded that different oils, both crude and refined, have

different effects but few researchers agree on what these

effects might be.

All are agreed, however, that refined products

are more damaging to biota than crude petroleum. It is

instructive in this regard to review what many consider

a "worst case" episode, the West Falmouth (Massachusetts)

spill, which released refined petroleum into a confined

area on the Atlantic seaboard.

The West Falmouth spill was relatively small by

volume. Between 171,000 and 184,000 gallons of #2 fuel oil

were released into Buzzards Bay when an oil barge grounded.

The immediate effect was a massive kill of marine life in-

cluding fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and worms and other

invertebrates. Sampling showed a 95% mortality of organisms

in the spill area. It is important to note.that although all

visual effects of this refined product were gone within a few

days, scientific sampling techniques demonstrated that after

eight months the oil was still spreading along the bottom and

killing the organisms there. Bottom sediment.was contaminated

in 42 feet of water at the deepest point in that part of Buz-

zards Bay. Very little bacterial breakdown of the oil had

occurred eight months after the spill. Commercial shell-

fishing was prohibited for two years in the area, and it

appears that shellfish productivity will be affected for a

much longer period. Destruction of the Buzzards Bay biota

reduced the stability of sediments and this has resulted in

increased erosion. Damage to shellfish for the first year

alone has been estimated at $118,000 by the town of Falmouth.

Another $200,000 was paid to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

for resource losses. The.actual ecological damage is estimated

to be much greater.(10,11)

As for crude oil, one of the primary impacts of a

spill in the Interface Area would be its effects on the

coastal birds. The Torrey Canyon, Santa Barbara and San

Francisco Bay spills have all demonstrated that oil releases

50 -

can kill significant proportions of local sea bird popula-

tions. During the Santa Barbara blowout, for instance, over

half of the local populations of loons and grebes were killed.

Since many sea bird's-have relatively low reproductive rates,

population recovery may be a very slow process. All of this

has particular importance to the Commonwealth because of the

large numbers of sea birds which utilize the Eastern Shore

and Back Bay areas each year.

The treatment of oiled birds has received consid-

erable publicity, but thus far surviva 1 of treated birds has

been very low. Less than 1% of the birds treated during the

Torrey Canyon disaster survived(12), and even under the best

conditions survival has been 20% or less.(2)

Most of the research conducted after previous spills

has concentrated on the intertidal zone, and thus the long

term effects of the oil which reaches the subtidal area are

virtually unknown. Intertidal organisms suffer primarily

from smothering when crude oil comes ashore, but may also be

affected by direct toxicity and fouling. The differences in

effects noticed seem to be related to the type of oil spilled

as well as the type of shoreline which receives it. Very

little is known of the effects of oil on beach communities.

Marshes can be adversely affected by single oil

spills, but generally their recovery is good. Experimental

studies have shown that marsh flora are highly vulnerable

to a series of oil dosages and that under these circumstances

recovery is poor. Marsh fauna appear to be more susceptible

- 51

to the effects of oil, but little research has been con-

ducted in this area.

Forecasting the economic impact of a catastrophic

oil spill on the Tidewater area is difficult, but it can be

said that the impact may be considerable under the proper

circumstances. Direct effects of the Santa Barbara spill

on commercial fish species have not been demonstrated, but

the presence of the oil prevented fishermen from trawling,

and thus affected their incomes. Other studies such as

that of the West Falmouth spill have shown tainting of shell-

fish to be a problem which can last for years, with the exact

duration still unknown. Many oil pollution scientists are

also concerned about the possible retention of carcinogenic

hydrocarbons by shellfish and other species well after any

noticeable taint has disappeared.

A large oil spill in the vicinity of or reaching

the Virginia Beach resort area would have a significant im-

pact on tourism in the area. Even if the spill did not occur

during the summer season, the adverse publicity would have

some impact on tourism even though the beach might well be

cleaned beforehand. In addition to aesthetic considerations,

the present erosion problem at Virginia Beach could be ex-

acerbated by the removal of beach sand during cleanup opera-

tions as well as by changes in the normal beach processes

brought about by the mixing of oil and sand and the destruc-

tion of normal biota.

52 -

Oil Cleanup

There are presently a wide variety of oil spill

containment and cleanup procedures available which attempt,

with varying success, and sometimes an environmental impact

of their own, to reduce the effects of spills. These methods

include the use of floating booms, sorbent materials, burning

agents, dispersants, sinking agents, biodegradants, and

others. In general, none of these methods has yet proved

satisfactory under natural conditions.

The National Petroleum Council, an oil-industry

advisory group to the Department of Interior,says of booms,

"Containment devices that will restrict the movement of oil

in the open sea are not available. There have been no de-

monstrations of oil recovery devices with the ability to

pick up oil from large spills in rough waters at the needed

rates and efficiencies."

Milgram(2) regards sorbents as having the greatest

potential use in the cleanup process, but Ahern(8) states

that the state of the art cannot handle waves in excess of

five feet and is thus unsatisfactory. Most dispersants are

so toxic to marine life that they cause more damage than the

oil they are used to disperse. New formulations may be able

to lessen this problem in the future. Sinking agents appear

to work well with weathered crude'oil spills but the danger

here is that the effects and the persistence of the oil once

it is on the bottom are virtually unknown. Burning agents

have met with little success and can cause temporary air

pollution. Although no quantitative data exists on the use

of biodegradation, indications are that there is a potential

for enhancing the natural activity of oil-degrading bacteria

and yeasts.(2)

Since environmental awareness in the oil industry

is relatively new, there is a great deal of research needed

to improve all of the above cleanup and containment techni-

ques. New methods and materials will be forthcoming in the

near future since considerable research is already underway.

For the present, however, natural processes will generally

have to be counted on to do much of the cleaning up after

a spill.

Pipeline Effects

Both from an industrial and environmental viewpoint,

the transport of crude oil from offshore fields by pipeline

is preferred to transport by tanker and barge. This is not

to say, however, that there are no problems associated with

pipeline use. Pipelines generally have a better record as

regards spills than tankers simply because there are fewer

opportunities for a spill to occur. The major impact of a

pipeline on the environment occurs during installation.

All pipelines placed in less than 200 feet of water

must be buried according to federal regulations. This in-

volves large amounts of dredge spoil and temporary disrup-

tion of the benthic area. Wetlands in Louisiana have ex-

perienced significant temporary and permanent damage since

the two methods developed there for laying pipelines in

marshes involve the excavation of canals. The canals may

cause disruption of natural drainage and water current

patterns as well as accelerated erosion. Biologically pro-

ductive areas are lost and disturbances such as changes in

turbidity, salinity, acidity, hydrogen sulfide levels and

biological oxygen demand may occur.(13)

The ocean coast of Virginia may be compartmented

into three zones on a north-sotth basis for the sake of

discussion of pipeline effects in the Commonwealth. These

zones are the Eastern Shore barrier island-marsh complex,

the Chesapeake Bay entrance, and the headland coast and

barrier between Cape Henry and the North Carolina-Virginia

boundary.

Since the pipeline must be buried in transiting

nearly all subaqueous lands the impact question relates

primarily to the method for crossing the shoreface and area

behind it.

In the case of a pipeline coming ashore on the

Eastern Shore or south of Cape Henry in an unburied or sur-

face mode, the pipeline and its armoring will interact with

the littoral drift system with inevitable adverse impact.

More importantly, the pipeline is exposed to severe wave

attack. The likely result would be local scour caused by

the concentration of wave energy and the resulting current

with the possibility of inlet formation and pipeline failure

at the shoreface. Therefore, even if the pipeline is elevated

after passing the shoreface, the risk of failure is high.

- 55

If the pipeline crossing the shoreface is buried

there is less environmental risk involved and the excavation

impact may be temporary in nature, provided that trenches

are backfilled and marsh species replanted. It is very

important, however, that the location of the crossing point

be given careful consideration. For example, the location

chosen should not be one which has had a history of tempo-

rary inlet formation since the pipeline could be scoured

out by a reoccurrence(14)

A pipeline through the Chesapeake Bay entrance

would have a temporary impact due to dredging. There would

be, however, the advantage of less wetlands destruction as

well as that of ultimately coming ashore on a lower energy

coast than than found on the ocean front.

Major Concerns

The following are the major concerns in the Inter-

face Area which are occasioned by OCS development:

(1) If new port facilities are developed major

impacts will be caused by the dredging of

channels. Care mus t be taken that spoil from

such dredging is disposed of in accordance

with accepted standards.

(2) Satellite industries may be expected to

locate on the Virginia coast and these may

cause impacts in the form of effluents, wet-

lands destruction, water usage, and increased

chance of spills of refined products. The

requirements of the National Pollutant Dis-

charge Elimination System (NPDES) should re-

duce these problems.

(3) OCS development may, if a pipeline is used

to transport the oil from the fields, reduce

the number of tankers antering Hampton Roads

from what it would be were OCS oil not de-

veloped. This could be significant, since

tanker transport accounts for 30% of the oil

which reaches the oceans and offshore rigs

only about 2% by some estimates.

(4) An oil spill involving a refined product in-

side Chesapeake Bay could severely affect the

estuary for a period of perhaps five years.

A crude oil spill, whether in ocean waters
or in the bay, might be less damaging due to

the general lower toxicity of the crude.

Virtually nothing is known of the effects of

the oil which is deposited below the inter-

tidal area. Adverse effects of sea bird

populations can be expected from almost any

spill. Oil reaching Virginia Beach could

severely impact the resort primarily through

the effects of adverse publicity.

(5) Although much research is underway to develop

and improve oil spill cleanup methods and

materials, the present state of the art does

not allow satisfactory recovery of spilled

oil, especially in rough seas. It appears

that more adequate techniques will be forth-

coming in the near future.

Conclusions

Virginia's shoreline, measuring some 5,000 miles,

is a natural resource of an estimable value to its citizens

and the hundreds of thousands of tourists which visit the

area annually., Already stressed by population pressures,

this coastline would undoubtedly face further stress from

OCS oil and gas development. The commonwealth must.take

the necessary steps to learn the impacts associated with all

ramifications of OCS development. Little is known of the

sublethal effects of hydrocarbon compounds on estuarine

organisms. A much greater knowledge of such characteristics

as carcinogenicity, persistence and toxicity must be acquired

to properly assess the impacts of development of a petroleum

industry in Virginia. Spill prevention and cleanup m ethods

are as yet inadequate and must be refined.

The unknown adverse factors mentioned above as

well as the known adverse factors such as wetlands destruc-

tion, benthic community disruption and the effects of efflu-

ents could all have an undesirable impact on the state and

its citizenry. Firm control backed by adequate knowledge of

all impacts associated with OCS development is necessary if

the seafood and tourist industries as well as the present

quality of life in Virginia is to be m4intained.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Athearn, W. D., G. L. Anderson, R. J. Byrne, C. H. Hobbs

III, and J. M. Zeigler. 1973. Shoreline Situation

Report, Northhampton County, Virginia. SRAMSOE No.

50. Prepublico-:.tion. VIMS, Gloucester Point, Vir-

ginia.

2. Boesch, D. F., C. H. Hershner and J. H. Milgram. 1974.

Oil Spills and the Marine Environment. Ballinger

Publishing Company. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

3. Baker, J. M. Biological effects of refinery effluents.

In: American Petroleum Institute. Proceedings of

a Joint Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil

Spills, Washington, D.C., March 13-15, 1973. pp.

715-724. Washington, American Petroleum Institute,

1973.

4. Baker, J. M. Refinery Effluent. In: Cowell, E. B., editor.

Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecological Effects

of oil Pollution on Littoral Communities, London, 30

November - 1 December 1970. London, Institute of

Petroleum, 1971.

5. Reish, D. J. The effect of oil refinery wastes on benthic

marine animals in Los Angeles Harbor, California.

Symposium Commission internationale exploration

scientifique Mer Mediterranee, Monaco, 1964, 355-

361F 1965.

6. Virginia State Water Control Board data.

- 59

7. Wass, M. L. and T. D. Wright. 1969. Coastal Wetlands

of Virginia.. Interim Report. SRAMSOE No. 10.

Gloucester Point, Virginia.

8. Ahern, W. R., Jr. 1973. Oil and the Outer Coastal Shelf.

Ballinger Publishing Company. Cambridge, Massa-

chusetts. 133 pp.

9. Porricelli, J. D., V. F. Keith and R. L. Storch. 1971.

Tankers and Ecology. Transactions.of the Society

of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 79:169-

221.

10. Blumer, M., H. L. Sanders, J.- F. Grassle and G. R.

Hampson. 1971. A Small Oil Spill. Environment,

13(2):1-12.

11. Blumer, M., J. Sass, G. Souza, H. Sanders, F. Grassle

and G. Hampson. 1970. The West Falmouth Oil

Spill. Technical Report 70-44 WHOI. Woods Hole,

Massachusetts.

12. Potter, J. 1973. Disaster by Oil. The Macmillan

Company. New York, New York.

13. Council on Environmental Quality. 1974. OCS Oil and

Gas - An Environmental Assessment. A Report to

the President.

14. Dr. Robert Byrne (VIMS) Personal Communication.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

onshore Area

The area that must support any development of the

OCS off our shores is the land itself. Here could be located

not only the refineries, the tank farms, and the petrochemi-

cal complexes, but also the housing, schools, restaurants

and shopping'centers required to support the workers. The

land and its people would reap the benefits of such develop-

ment, but would also be required to bear the burden of costs

for the added public services required, including police

protection, firemen, local administration and hospitals.

There are the further considerations of increased water

requirements (both domestic and industrial), solid waste,

and sewage, plus the attendant potentials for air and water

pollution. All are discussed below.

General Approach

The impacts of high level OCS oil and gas develop-

ment upon the onshore portion of the Commonwealth have been

projected for 1985 by means of a three step process. First,

an industrial development scenario was drawn based on the

production level assumptions of Section II and a number of

known or reasonably projected product demand and plant loca-

tion constraints. This scenario resulted in a description

of statewide impacts which can be applied to either of two

primary impact areas (Eastern Shore or Hampton Roads/York

River entrance) or to the remainder of the state. The

second step was to project employment and population figures

attributable to OCS development for each area. The third

step in this process was to assess the social and physical

effects of this development on each area.

These social and physical impacts, as well as the

economic impact discussed in step two, would be the results

of two basic types and levels of development. The most direct

and obvious changes will result from the construction and

operation of those facilities and industries involved in

actual oil-and gas-related activities. These will include

exploration related facilities such as onshore bases and

supply yards, production related facilities, a major plat-

form fabrication facility, processing plants for natural gas,

refineries for oil, and associated petrochemical plants, as

well as storage and transmission facilities such as tank

farms and pipelines. These impacts are relatively easily

quantified and assigned to specific areas. Less direct and

less obvious, but of greater overall importance in many

respects, are the impacts which will result from the domestic

and other development generated by the direct oil and gas

related activities. These impacts will include other in-

duced manufacturing plants, service employment generated

to support the basic industries, and the total population

increase associated with this overall increase in the labor

force. These impacts may be quantified and attributed to

geographic impact areas by inference from projections of the

primary impacts.

- 62

Finally, mention must be made of the impact of new

air pollution control regulations and federal court rulings

upon both industrial and secondary developments. Indirect

sources, for instance, such as facilities which attract more

than a certain number of vehicles, will be controlled by per-

mit after 1 January 1975. New industrial sources must also

be permitted. Further, new industrial sources to be located

within a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) must

nut prevent maintenance in that area of National Ambient Air

Quality Standards. Outside the SMSA's, EPA non-degradation

requirements may pose problems.

Assumptions

Major assumptions of the onshore section of this

report, which are in addition to the overall assumptions of

Section II, are discussed below. Many of these assumptions

are based on the findings of an earlier report entitled

"Off-Shore Port Facilities" which was completed in February

of this year by the Virginia off-Shore Port Facilities Task

Force. The assumptions are as follows:

(1) Base case I assumes that capacity of the York-

town refinery will increase by 60 percent to

80,000 barrels per day and that the Suffolk

refinery will be built with production of

184,000 barrels per day. Under the base case

I assumption, Virginia would have total re-

finery capacity of 264,000 barrels per day

by 1985.

(2) Base case II assumes that capacity of the

Yorktown refinery will increase by 100 per-

cent to 100,000 barrels per day and that the

Suffolk refinery will be built as outlined in

base case I. In addition, the Transco re-

finery is assumed to be operational with a

200,000 barrel capacity. In base case II an

off-shore port facility would be built off

the coast of Virginia. bnder the base case

II assumption, Virginia would have total

refinery capacity of 484,000 barrels per day

by 1985.

(3) With development of the outer continental

shelf (OCS), Virginia's total refinery capa-

city would reach 750,000 barrels per day. In

addition to the assumptions made in base case

I and base case II, it is assumed that the

Yorktown refinery will increase capacity to

150,000 barrels per day, that the Suffolk re-

finery will increase capacity to 300,000 barrels

per day, and that the Motor Gas, Oil, and Re-

fining Corporation will build its facility with

a 100,000 barrel per day capacity.

(4) For each 50,000 barrels per day refinery capa-

city, 135 employees are needed.

(5) Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical

worker is expected to create employment for one

additional construction worker, one addi-

tional utility worker, and two additional

manufacturing workers. Also, each additional

"basic industry" type worker is expected to

create an additional service or "supporting"

type worker.

(6) All of Virginia's present and future (through

1985) refinery capacity growth will be in the

Hampton Roads/York River area.

(7) Two gas processing facilities will be built

on Virginia's Eastern Shore by 1985, employ-

ing a total of approximately 100 persons.

(8) Two petrochemical facilities will be built in

the Hampton Roads/York River area by 1985,

employing a total of 2,275 persons.

(9) Brown and Root, a major metal fabricator, is

assumed to employ about 1,700 persons on the

Eastern Shore by 1985 with OCS production.

(10) Of the 7,520 persons estimated by Resource

Planning Associates to be employed in east

coast oil and gas recovery by 1985, one half

is assumed to be employed in Virginia. Of

the Virginia total (3,760), one half or 1,880

would be employed on the Eastern Shore and

one half in the Hampton Roads/York River area.

(11) Ratios used to generate figures for the ten

social and physical system indicators from

1985 population figures are in some cases the

averages of similar determinations made for

four east coast hypothetical case studies

done by Resource Planning Associates for the

Council on Environmental Quality. These case

study locations are Bristol County, Massa-

chusetts; Cumberland/Cape May Counties, New

Jersey; Charleston, South Carolina; and Jack-

sonville, Florida. Other quantitative values

are commonly accepted for Virginia where dif-

ferent from those presented by RPA. Specific

ratios used are:

School enrollment 262.5 per thousand popula-
tion (RPA)

Hospital beds 3.64 per thousand population
(RPA)

Police manpower 1.54 per thousand population
(RPA)

Government overhead $7.53 per person (RPA)

Government employees 30 per thousand population
(VA.)

Water demand - domestic 100 gallons per person per day
(VA.)

Water demand - Industrial (petroleum industry figures
based on RPA report)

Refineries - 40 gallons per
barrel

Gas processing 15,000 gallons
per plant

Petrochemical 24 million
gallons per day per plant

Sewage - domestic 100 gallons per person
per day

Solid waste 3 tons per thousand pop-
ulation per day (VA.)

Residential structures 3.0 persons per household
(VA.)

Commercial structures 24.5 sq. ft. per person
(RPA)

Finally, it is well to reiterate here that this

section of the report is based on a major discovery of gas

and oil on the Virginia OCS. This assumption is made so

that the greatest conceivable impact will be considered on

the theory that if Virginia's posture is adequate to handle

such impact, it will also prove sufficient for anything

less.

Potential Impact Areas

Possible economic impacts of the assumed high OCS

development are indicated in Tables 1 through 3. The major

factors analyzed include population, employment, and the

labor force participation rate. Within total employment,

specific areas of analysis include construction, mining,

agriculture, manufacturing, utilities, and services.

For historical reference 1972 population and em-

ployment figures were used. Projections were then made to

1985 using three different sets of assumptions in reference

to refinery capacity in Virginia and OCS development. The

absolute change in population and employment resulting from

each of the three 1985 development levels is also shown.

The impacts of a high level of OCS oil and gas

production on social and Physical systems are projected and

illustrated (Table 4) in terms of a set of ten systems fac-

tors, five for each overall system. Each of these factors

represents a valid component of the respective system to

which it belongs, but in addition, the five in each category

can serve as a set of indicators of trends within the overall

system brought about by stress being applied to that system.

In this case, the stress is the hypothetical impact of a

large oil find off the coast and-the trends are those of

increases in the overall level of performance required of

the social and physical systems of the state and each re-

spective impact area. It should be noted that the systems

components used here for.indicators are only samples of the

total set of many similar components that make up each system.

They are hopefully a representative sample, but are by no

means exclusive. Projections for each of these indicators

are dependent upon the overall population increase figures

projected for the OCS production assumption case. Each is

linked to the population figure in a direct positive corre-

lation based on current ratios of level of each indicator's

performance to population. The figures shown thus represent

increases in each category over what that same category level

would be under 1985 base case II assumptions.

The social systems changes for the state and the

two impact areas are indicated by changes in school enroll-

ment, required hospital beds, police manpower, government

overhead, and government employees. Physical systems changes

- 68 - I

are shown as changes in water demand (domestic and industrial),

domestic sewage discharge, solid waste generation, numbers of

residential structures, and required square footage of commer-

cial facilities. The division between social and physical sys-

tems used here is admittedly tenuous. Several indicators have

aspects which could fall into either category. Solid waste,

for example,. impacts upon the physical system by being a phy-

sical commodity which requires land for disposal or for an

incineration system. At the same time, however, it impacts

upon the social system by requiring an effort by local govern-

ment for its collection and disposal. In general, the physi-

cal systems components involve the use or commitment of phy-

sical resources such as water and land, while the social in-

dicators involve services.

Eastern Shore

As of July, 1972, the Eastern Shore of Virginia

had an estimated population of 43,500. Total employment for

the same year was approximately 16,600 persons with the single

most important employment sector being agriculture. However,

agriculture, traditionally the most important employer in

the area, is yielding its dominance to manufacturing activity.

Other traditionally large "basic" activities in the area in-

clude fishing and the tourist industries. The labor force

participation rate as a percent of population on the Eastern

Shore currently stands at 43.2 percent.

1
Consists of Accomack and Northampton Counties.

69 -

In base case I, which assumes the building of no

off-shore port facilities and no development of the outer

continental shelf (OCS), the Eastern Shore population is ex-

pected to reach 47,200 by 1985. With considerable growth

anticipated in manufacturing activity (primarily Brown and

Root) and continued employment declines in agriculture,
manufacturing by 1985 will be the Eastern Shore's most impor-

tant employer in place of agriculture. In base case I total

employment is projected to reach 17,800 and the labor force

participation rate is expected to fall slightly to 41.3

percent.

In base case II the Eastern Shore population and

employment figures would remain unchanged because refinery

capacity increases built into this case would affect the

Hampton Roads/York River area only.

With OCS development the Eastern Shore population

is projected to increase by 5,700 persons, while employment

will expand by approximately 7,400 by 1985. The largest

11primary" or "basic" industry employment gain would be in

mining (oil and gas extraction). For purposes of simplifi-

cation, employment ass ociated with exploration, platform

development and oil and gas production are all grouped into

the oil and gas recovery or extraction category. The

2
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. estimates that a total
of 7,520 persons would be employed in oil and gas recovery
on the east coast by 1985. Of this total 1,550 would be
employed in exploration, 3,720 in platform development and
2,250 in oil and gas production.

Eastern Shore mining employment total for 1985 is projected

to be 1,880 with 390 persons in exploration, 930 in plat-

form development, and 560 in oil and gas production. It is

assumed that one quarter of total east coast oil'and gas re-

covery employment for 1985 will itinpact on Virginia's Eastern

Shore.

An employment gain of 1,500 is anticipated in

"other" manufacturing, specifically fabricated metal products

with expansion of Brown and Root. Approximately 100 persons

would be employed in the two gas processing plants assumed to

be located on the Eastern'Shore by 1985. Secondary employ-

ment gains totaling approximately 3,900 persons would occur

in the construction, utilities, and service categories.

Thus, with OCS development the Eastern Shore will

have a 1985 population total of 52,900 and total employment

of 25,260. The area's labor force participation rate is

projected to increase to 50 percent.

Social system impacts on the Eastern Shore associ-

ated with the projected population increase of 5,700 include

almost 1,500 new school children, 21 new hospital beds, a

manpower increase in the local police of nine men, and a

rise in state and local g overnment employment of 171. In

addition, local government overhead costs would rise by

nearly $43,000.

The physical system would see a rise of 0.6

million gallons per day (mgd) in total water demand and 0.57

mgd of domestic sewage for the 1,900 new households gene-

71 -

rated. To serve these, almost 140,000 square feet of new

commercial floor spacewould be required. Solid waste gene-

ration would rise by 17.1 tons per day.
3
Hampton Roads/York River

Virginia's Hampton Roads/York River area was esti-
mated to have a 1972 population of 1,04'4,400. Total employ-

ment including military was approximately 503,400 with the

federal government (both military and civilian) being the

largest single employer. As shown in Table II, federal

employment totaled approximately 170,500 persons. Nearly

60,000 persons are currently employed in manufacturing jobs,

with approximately one half of these working in Newport News

with the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company.

Also included in the manufacturing sector are 225 persons

employed by American Oil Company at its Yorktown refinery.

As previously stated, this is the only refinery in Virginia.

Its daily production is about 50,000 barrels of refined pro-

ducts. The entire area represents the most populated and

one of the most highly industrialized regions within the

state. Currently the area has a labor force participation

rate of 49.3 percent.

Base case I assumes that refinery production in

Virginia and the Hampton Roads/York River area will increase

3
Consists of the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake,
Suffolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport News, and
Williamsburg, and the counties of James City and York.

to 264,000 barrels per day. By 1985, the Yorktown refinery

in base case I will have acapacity of 80,000 barrels per

day and a newly-built Suffolk refinery will have daily pro-

duction of 184,000 barrels. The population of the Hampton

Roads area is expected to reach 1,244,600 by 1985 without

off-shore port and OCS development. Total employment is

expected to increase to approximately 600,800 persons with

the largest gains coming in manufacturing employment. With-

in the manufacturing sector, more than 700 persons are pro-

jected to be employed in petroleum refining. The area's

labor force participation rate is expected to increase

slightly to 49.6 percent.

As indicated in the assumptions for this section,

in base case II an off-shore port facility is built, and

refinery capacity increases to 484,000 barrels per day. It

is further assumed that all refinery capacity gains would

occur in the Hampton Roads/York River area. In base case

II the area's population would increas e by 4,000 persons

over the base case I population for 1985. Total employment

would increase by approximately 6,400 persons with a gain

of nearly 1,800 in manufacturing. Refinery employment

would be up by nearly 600 to 1,300 persons. In base case

II the area's labor force participation rate is projected to

reach 50.0 percent.

The population of the Hampton Roads area with OCS

development is projected to increase by nearly 67,000, reach-

ing a 1985 population total of 1,315,500. Total employment

is expected to grow by nearly 46,800 with a nearly 13,000

person gain in manufacturing. Employment in petroleum re-

fining, gas processing and petrochemicals would increase by

4,300 thus reaching a 5,600 person total. Included in the

figure of 4,300 would be 2,025 persons actually employed in

refineries. The remaining 2,275 persons are estimated to

be employed in two major petrochemical operations. A signi-

ficant gain (1,880 persons) is also anticipated in oil and

gas extraction (mining). As on the Eastern Shore, one

quarter of total east coast oil and gas recovery employment

for 1985 is expected in the Hampton Roads/York River area.

As indicated earlier, all refinery capacity associated with

the 750,000 barrel per day OCS production assumption would

be refined in Virginia's Hampton Roads/York River area.

With OCS development, the Yorktown refinery would produce

150,000 barrels per day, the Suffolk refinery 300,000 bar-

rels per day, and the two Portsmouth refineries 200,000 and

100,000 barrels per day.

The area's relatively high labor force participa-

tion rate is expected to increase slightly from 50.0 per-

cent to 51.0 percent with OCS development.

In the Hampton Roads/York River area, a population

increase of 66,900 would result in over 17,000 new school

enrollments, new hospital capacity of 244 beds, 103 new

police positions, and 2,007 new state and local governmental

employees. Local government overhead would rise by more

than $500,000.

Large increases would be felt in water demand with

78 mgd required for new industry and 6.7 mgd for domestic

supply. Domestic sewage discharge would rise by 6.7 mgd

as well. An increase of two hundred one tons per day of

solid waste would accompany the 22,000 new households and

1.6 million square feet of new commercial space.

Commonwealth of Virginia

Virginia's 1972 population was estimated to be

4,764,000. Total employment was estimated at 1,860,000.

Only ten persons were employed in oil and gas extraction--

primarily in southwest Virginia. As previously mentioned,

only 225 persons were employed statewide in refinery pro-

duction, all of whom were employed on one Hampton Roads/

York River facility. Statewide in 1972, the labor force

participation rate was 40.2 percent.

In base case I the state's total population is

anticipated to reach 5,650,000, and total employment is

projected to reach 2,376,000. Refinery employment for

the state would be the same as for the Hampton Roads/York

River area--approximately 700 persons. The state's labor

force participation rate is projected to reach 43.2 per-
cent. In base case III the changes in Virginia's popu-

lation and employment totals resulting from refinery em-

ployment gains are exactly the same as for the Hampton

Roads/York River area in that all changes are anticipated

there.

In the case of OCS development, the impact figures

for the Eastern Shore and Hampton Roads/York River were

aggregated to arrive at the total for Virginia. Virginia's

total population would increase by 72,600, and total employ-

ment would be increased by 54,120. For the entire state in

1985, approximately 5,700 persons w6uld be empl oyed in petro-

leum refining, gas processing and petrochemicals, and an

additional 3,785 in oil and gas extraction. Secondary em-

ployment gains resulting from OCS development include an

additional 4,400 persons in both construction and utility

activity and an additional 70,100 persons in other manu-

facturing jobs. Service employment would be increased by

approximately 27,000. With OCS development, the state's

labor force participation rate would be expected to go up

slightly to 43.7 percent.

The social and physical system impacts on Virginia

as a whole are also treated here as simple aggregates of the

impacts on the two specific areas. The 72,600 additional

persons attributable to OCS development would result in

19,058 new school enrollees, 264 additional hospital beds,

112 additional police personnel, and a rise in state and

local governmental employment of 2,178. Local government

overhead would increase by $546,678.

Water requirements would be up by over 85 million

gallons per day and domestic sewage up by over 7 mgd. A

solid waste increase of 218 tons per day would accompany

more than 24,000 new housing units and almost 1.8 million

- 76

square feet of new commercial space.

Major Concerns

major concerns associated with OCS development in

the Onshore Area are:

(1) The possibility of rapid, uncontrolled growth,

particularly in the relatively rural Eastern

Shore.

(2) Air and water pollution resulting from both

directly and indirectly OCS-related industrial

development, as well as secondary development.

(3) The demand for large amounts of water which

will be required to support any development.

Problems in this regard are already projected

for the Hampton Roads/York River area, and the

Eastern Shore has only limited supplies.

(4) The requirements for increased public ser-

vices and for increased overhead of local

government.

Conclusions

In general, the results of this analytical

procedure have some significant impacts likely to occur

under these assumptions with the possibility for even

greater impacts under different working assumptions. The

Eastern Shore, for example, would experience modest popula-

tion increases and concurrent demands upon social and physi-

cal systems. Of possibly greater impact would be the signi-

ficant shift that could occur from an economy, lifestyle,

77 -

and landscape pattern based primarily upon agriculture, fish-

ing and food-related industry to one based more upon general

and oil-related industry.

The Hampton Roads/York River area would-experience

much greater increases in both population and industrial

development. These increases could severely tax not only

the social and physical support systems of the area but also

something as basic as available space as well. Both water

supply and air quality considerations could conceivably act

as limiting physical factors. Supplying sufficient water to

the Hampton Roads/York River area is a problem today, and de-

mand increases of over 80 million gallons per day by 1985 may

prove impossible without reclamation of treated domestic

wastewater, the importation of water from other river basins,

or the desalinization of seawater. Air pollutant discharges

of over 30,000 tons per year (particulates) could likewise

prove to be intolerable in an area with "air space" for less
4
than 2,000 tons.

Along with impacts upon the above geographic areas,

the state as a whole could feel major effects of OCS develop-

ment. The nature of these impacts, though not as easily pro-

jected, could be one of healthy progress and financial bene-

fit if properly directed by sound planning and judicious regu-

lation.

Air Pollution Control Board, Estimate of the Effect of
Outer Continental Shelf Development on Air Pollution
Control.

TABLE I.--POSSIBLE HIGH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ON VIRGINIA'S EASTERN SHORE

1972 1985
a/ Absolute Absolute c/
Actual Base Case r Change Base Case 111Y Change OCS Development-
Population 43,500 47,200 47,200 5,700 52,900

Labor force (including military) 18,810 19,500 19,500 6,960 26,460

Unemployment 2,175 1,600 1,600 -400 1,200

Total employment (including military) 16,635 17,900 17,900 7,360 25,260
Construct .ion 361 420 420 h/ 100 520h/

Mining
Oil and gas extraction 1,880 1,880.1/
Otherd7

Agriculture 3,360 2,500 2,500 2,500

Manufacturing
Petroleum refining, gas processing
and/petrochemical
Othere 3,353 5,400 5,400i/ 1,500 6,900.i/
Utilitie,f/ 509 630 630 100 730 i/
Servicesfa/ 9,052 8 950 8,950h/ 3,680 12,630!S/

Labor force as a percent of population 43.2 41.3 41.3 50.0

a/ Base case one assumes that refinery capacity at the Yorktown refinery will increase by 60 percent to 80,000 barrels per day and that the
SuffoTk refinery will be built with production of 184,000 barrels per day. Under the base case I assumption, Virginia would have total refinery
capacity of 264,000 barrels per day by 1985.

b/ Base case two assumes that refinery capacity at the Yorktown refinery will increase by 100 percent to 100,000 barrels per day and that
the S_uffolk refinery will be built as outlined in base case I. In addition the Transco refinery in Portsmouth is assumed to be operational with a
200,000 barrel refinery capacity. In base case 11 an off-shore port facility would be built off the coast of Virginia. Under the base case Il
assumption, Virginia would have totalrefinery capacity of 484,000 barrels per day by 1985.
c/ Under the third option, development of Virginia outer continental shelf is assumed. Total refinery production would reach 750,000 barrels
per day. In addition to the assumptions made in base case I and base case II, it is assumed that the Yorktown refinery will increase capacity to
150,000 barrels per day, the Suffolk refinery will increase capacity to 300,000 barrels per day and that the Motor Gas, Oil and Refining Corporation
will build its Portsmouth facility with a 100,000 barrel per day capacity.

d/ Includes all mining except oil and gas extraction, which is SIC group 13.

e/ includes all manufacturing except petroleum refining and related industries which is SIC group 29.

f/ includes all public utilities, transportation, and communications. Presented are SIC categories 40 through 49.

TABLE I.--POSSIBLE HIGH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ON VIRGINIA'S EASTERN SHORE (Cont'd)

Includes all employment not mentioned in the above categories. SIC categories 50 through 99 are included here.

h/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create employment for one additional construction worker.

i/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create employment for one additional utility worker.

Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create two additional other manufacturing jobs.

k/ Each additional "basic industry" type worker is expected to create an additional service or "supporting" type worker.

l/ Represents one half of the east coast exploration, platform development and oil and gas production total estimated to be needed by Resource
Planning Associates in order to produce 750,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Sources: Resource Planning Associates, Inc. "Potential Onshore Effects of Oil and Gas Production on the Atlantic and Gulf of Alaska outer
Continental Shelf," December 1973; Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater oil Terminal-wRelated Industrial Development -
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality;" United States Department of the Interior,"Environmental Impact Statement: Deepwater Ports,"
April, 1974; Commonwealth of Virginia, "Off-Shore Port Facilities: Commonwealth of Virginia," February, 1974; and Tetra Tech, Inc., "The Effect of
Natural Phenomena on OCS Gas and Oil Development," December, 1973.

00
0

TABLE 2.--POSSIBLE HIGH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ON VIRGiNIA'S HAMPTON ROADS AREA
1972 1985
Absolute Absolute
Actual Base Case I!/ Change Base Case II Change OCS Development -

Population 1,044,400 1,244,600 4,000 1,248,600 66,900 1,315,500

Labor force (including military) 514,755 617,693 6,435 624,128 46,760 670,888

Unemployment 11,346 16,953 16,953 16,953

Total employment (including military) 503,409 600,740 6,435 607,175 46,760 653,935
Construction 21,466 27,600 585 28,770il 4,300 33,070i/

Mining
Oil an gas extraction - - 1,880 1,88CP-/
OtheZ 57 60 60 60

Agriculture 3,898 2,868 2,686 2,868

Manufacturing
Petroleum refining, gas processing, h/
and trochemicals 225 715 585 1 300.- 4,300 5 600
Other 97 59,914 83,926 1,170 85: 09;k/ 8,600 93:69;@/
00
UtilitieT f/ 20,749 25,200 585 25,785/ 4,300 30,085j-/

Federal government 170,520 154,000 154,000 154,000
ServicesA/ 226,580 306,371 2,925 309,2961/ 23,380 332,6761/

Labor force as a p ercent of population 49.3 49.6 50.0 51.0

at Base case one assumes that refinery capacity at the Yorktown refinery will increase by 60 percent to 80,000 barrels per day and that the
Suffolk refinery will be built with production of 184,000 barrels per day. Under the base case I assumption, Virginia would have total refinery
capacity of 264,000 barrels per day by 1985.

b/ Base case two aE@sumes that refinery capacity Ett the Yorktown refinery will increase by 100 percent to 100,000 barrels per day and that
the Suffolk refinery will be built as outlined in base case I. In addition the Transco refinery in Portsmouth is assumed to be operational with a
200,000 barrel refinery capacity. In base case II an off-shore port facility would be built off the coast of Virginia. Under the base case II
assumption, Virginia would have total refinery capacity of 484,000 barrels per day by 1985.
cl Under the third option, development of Virginia outer continental shelf is assumed. Total refinery production would reach 750,000 barrels
per d;iy. In addition to the assumptions made in base case I and base case II, it is assumed that the Yorktown refinery will increast capacity to
150,000 barrels per day, the Suffolk refinery will increase capacity to 300,000 barrels per day and that the motor Gas, oil and Refining Corporation
will build@ its Portsmouth facility with a 100,000 barrel per day capacity.

d/ Includes all mining except oil and gas extraction, which is SIC group 13.

e/ Includes all manufacturing except petroleum refining and related industries which is SIC group 29.

f/ Includes all public utilities, transportation, and communications. Presented are SIC categories 40 through 49.

TABLE 2.--POSSIBLE HIGH DEVELOPNENT IMPACT OF THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ON VIRGINIA'S HAMPTON ROADS AREA (Cont'd)

includes all employment not mentioned in the above categories. SIC categories 50 through 99 are included here.

h/ It is assumed that 135 refinery workers are required for each 50,000 barrels per day refinery capacity. Thus, with refinery capacity of
484,000 barrels, 1,300 workers would be needed.

i/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create employment for one additional construction worker.

i/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create employment for one additional utility worker.

k/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create two additional other manufacturing jobs.

I/ Each additional "basic industry" type worker is expected to create an additional service or "supporting" type worker.

m/ Represents one fourth of the east coast exploration, platform development and oil and gas production total estimated to be needed by
Resource Planning Associates in order to produce 750,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Sources: Resource Planning Associates, Inc. "Potential onshore Effects of Oil and Gas Production on the Atlantic and Gulf of Alaska outer
Continental Shelf," December 1973; Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Industrial Development
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality;11 United States Department of the Interior, "Environmental Impact Statement: Deepwater Ports,"
April, 1974; Commonwealth of Virginia, "Off-Shore Port Facilities: Commonwealth of Virginia," February, 1974; and Tetra Tech, Inc., "The Effect of
Natural Phenomena on OCS Gas and Oil Development," December, 1973.

TABLE 3.--POSSIBLE HIGH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ON ONSHORE VIRGINIA

-1972 1985

Absolute Absolute
Actual Base Case -Change Base Case II Change OCS Dev@@---tm@

Population 4,764,000 5,650,000 4,000 5,654,000 72,600

Labor force (including military) 1,913,300 2,440,000 6,435 2,446,435 54,120 2,500,555

Unemployment 51,700 64,000 64,000 63,600

Total employment (including military) 1,860,000 2,376,000 6,435 2,382,435 54,120 2,436,555
Construction 99,400 126,000 1,170 127,170-L/ 4,400 131,5701/
Mining 3,785-@-/
Oil an
d@ gas extraction 10 25 25 3,760
Other- 15,690 19,975 19,975 19,975

Agriculture 73,300 40,000 40,000 4.0,000

Manufacturing
Petroleum refining, gas processing h/
and/petrochemicals 225 715 1 30O:-_' 4,400 5 700
00 Othere 375,175 514,285 1,170 515'45@k/ 10,100 525:55.;@
Utilities f/ 98,900 125,000 585 125,585 4,400 129,985-i/
ServicesZ/ 1,197,300 1,550,000 2,925 1,552,925-1/ 27,060 1,579,985P

Labor force as a percent of population 40.2 43.2 43.3 43.7

a/ Base case one assumes that refinery capacity at the Yorktown refinery will increase by 60 percent to 80,000 barrels per day and that the
Suffolk refinery will be built with production of 184,000 barrels per day. Under the base case I assumption, Virginia would have total refinery
capacity of 264,000 barrels per day by 1985.

b/ Base case two assumes that refinery capacity at the Yorktown refinery will increase by 100 percent to 100,000 barrels per day and that
the Suffolk refinery wil:l be built as outlined in base case I. In addition the Transco refinery in Portsmouth is assumed to be operational with a
200,000 barrel refinery capacity. In base case II an off-shore port facility would be built off the coast of Virginia. Under the base case II
assumption, Virginia would have total refinery capacity of 484,000 barrels per day by 1985.

c/ Under,the third option, development of Virginia outer continental shelf is assumed. Total refinery production would reach 750,000 barrels
per day. In addition to the assumptions made in base case I and base case II, it is assumed that the Yorktown refinery will increase capacity to
150,000 barrels per day, the Suffolk refinery will increase capacity to 300,000 barrels per day and that the Motor Gas, Oil and Refining Corporation
-will build its Portsmouth facility with a 100,000 barrel per day capacity.

d/ Includes all mining except oil and gas extraction, which is SIC group 13.

e/ Includes all manufacturing except petroleum refining and related industries which is SIC group 29.

f/ Includes all public utilities, transportation, and communications. Presented are SIC categories 40 through 49.

TABLE 3.--POSSIBLE HIGH DEVELOPMENT INPACT OF TEE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ON ONSHORE VIRGINIA (Con'd)

Includes all employment not mentioned in the above categories. SIC categories 50 through 99 are included here.

h/ It is assumed that 135 refinery workers are required.for each 50,000 barrels per day refinery capacity. Thus, with refinery capacity of
484,COO barrels, 1,300 workers would be needed.

i/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create employment for one additional construction worker..

J/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create employment for one additional utility worker.

k/ Each refinery, gas processing, and petrochemical worker is expected to create two additional other manufacturing jobs.

l/ Each additional "basic industry" type worker is expected to create an additional service or "supporting" type worker.

m/ Represents one half of the east coast exploration, platform development and oil and gas production total estimated to be needed by Resource
Planning Associates in order to produce 750,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Sources: Resource Planning Associates, Inc. "Potential onshore Effects of Oil and Gas Production on the Atlantic and Gulf of Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf," December 1973; Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Potential onshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Industrial Development -
Report to the Council on Environmental Quality;" United States Department of the Interior, "Environmental Impact Statement: Deepwater Ports,"
April, 1974; Commonwealth of Virginia, "Off-Shore Port Facilities: Commonwealth of Virginia," February, 1974; and Tetra Tech, Inc., "The Effect of
Natural Phenomena on OCS Gas and oil Development," December, 1973.

CD
4'

TABLE 4.--POSSIBLE 1985 HIGH OCS DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL SYSTEMS:
VIRGINIA, HAMPTON ROADS, AND EASTERN SHORE

Virginia Hampton Roads Eastern Shore

Population (absolute change over Base Case 11) 72,600 66,900 5,700
Social Systems a/
School enrollment b/ 19,058 17,561 1,496
Hospital beds cl 265 244 21
Police manpower d/ 112 103 9
Government overhead, e/ $546,678 $503,757 $42,921
Government employees f/ 2,178 2,007 171

Physical Systems
Water demands (million gallons per day)ya/
domestic 7.26 6.69 .57
petroleum related industry h/ 78+ 78 .03
Sewage - domestic (million gallons per day) 7.26 6.69 .57
Solid waste (tons per day) i/ 218+ 201 17
Residential structures i/ 24,200 22,300 1,900
Commercial structures (square feet)ls/ 1,778,700 1,639,050 139,650
Go

a/ Ratios used to generate figures for the ten social and physical system indicators from 1985 population figures are in some
cases the averages of similar ratios for four east coast hypothetical case studies done by Resource Planning Associates for the
Council on Environmental Quality. These case study locations are Bristol County, Massachusetts, Cumberland/Cape May Counties, New Jersey,
Charleston, South Caroline, and Jacksonville, Florida. Other ratios are commonly accepted ones for Virginia supplied by the State Water
Control Board and the Division of State Planning and Community Affaits where significantly different from RPA figures.
b/ School enrollment is assumed to be .2625 the total population, based on RPA figures.
c/ Demand for hospital beds is assumed to be 3.64 per thousand population based on RPA figures.
d/ It is assumed that 1.54 additional police persons will be required for each 1,000 persons based on RPA figures.
e/ Local government overhead cost is estimated at $7.53 per person based on RPA figures.
f/ A ratio of 30 government employees per thousand population is assumed based on DSPCA figures for Virginia.
fl/ A domestic water demand and sewage discharge of 100 gallons per person per day is assumed based on SWCB estimates for Virginia.
h/ Petroleum industry water demand figures are based on assumptions of 40 gallons per barrel for refineries, 15,000 gpd per gas
processing plant, and 24 mgd per major petrochemical complex from RPA sources.
i/ Solid waste is assumed to be generated at 3 tons per thousand persons per day based on SWCB Virginia estimates.
j./ Residential structure figures are calculated at a ratio of 3.0 persons per household based on DSPCA-Virginia figures.
k/ Commercial structure requirements are assumed to be 24.5 square feet per person based on RPA figures.

Sources: Resource Planning Associates, Inc."Potential Onshore Effects of-Oil and Gas Production on the Atlantic and Gulf of Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf," December, 1973; Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Industrial Develop-
ment - Report to the Council on Environmental Quality;" United States Department of the Interior, "Environmental Impact Statement:
Deepwater Ports," April, 1974; Commonwealth of Virginia, "Off-Shore Port Vacilities: Commonwealth of Virginia," February, 1974; and
Tetra Tech, Inc., "The Effect of Natural Phenomena on OCS Gas and Oil Development," December, 1973.

Recommendations

This section will set forth recommendations based

.Upon the preceeding portions of this report. Their ultimate

aim is to enable Virginia to derive maximum benefit from

whatever resources may be discovered on the OCS, while pre-

serving to the greatest possible extent the environment which
so enhances our daily lives. In fact, given the energy re-

quirements of the United States, we feel they will likely b e

developed whether or not we as Virginians desire it,, regard-

less of the decision of the Supreme Court with respect to

ownership of the offshore lands. It therefore behooves us to

make arrangements to anticipate the effects of OCS development

and its associated problems.

In order, therefore, to prepare for the possibility

of the development of the OCS off the coast of our state, we

make the following recommendations:

Overall Recommendations

(1) Virginia is currently involved in the develop-

ment of a Coastal Zone Management Plan. It

is recommended that this planning effort con-

sider the possibility of OCS oil and gas ex-

ploration and exploitation, including the

findings of this and any subsequent reports.

Other related reports, such as that recently

completed on Offshore Port Facil ities should

also be considered.

It is further recommended that any planning

for and regulation of OCS development be con-

ducted consistently with and as a part of the

Coastal Zone planning effort.

(2) In case the Supreme Court rules against the states

federal legislation to require sharing of

federal rents, bonuses and royalties received

from the leasing of OCS lands should be sup-

ported. Some arrangements to pass funds from

this source to the localities seems only simple

justice, since it is they who bear the brunt of

the onshore impacts. These impacts include not

only the public services which must be furnish-

ed to the industries and people related to OCS

development, but also those less easily quanti-

fied financially, such as the threat of oil

spills, modifications to coastal ecology and

shifts in population. Further, such legisla-

tion should consider the fact that onshore de-

velopment in one state could well be related to

OCS development off the coast of a neighboring

state5 and provisions made therefor. A joint

declaration to this effect by all coastal

states would be a useful means of supporting

such legislation.

(3) The Atlantic Coast al States should oppose

drilling on OCS lands until an oil spill

cleanup association organized in the fashion

of "Clean Gulf Associates" has been formed

for the Atlantic area by the oil companies

who desire to.exploit the Atlantic OCS. This

association should be capable of employing

"state of the art" technology in its clean-

up activities.

(4) Research problems concerning hydrocarbons and

the marine environment should be jointly

attacked by the Atlantic Coastal States and

the Federal Government in order to prevent

needless duplication. Virginia should develop

an adequate offshore research and monitoring

capability to support thi@_lse studies. Though

it is impossible to list here all of the pro-

grams which should be scientifically pursued

in this regard, the following general topics

are considered to be the most important:

(a) Baseline studies to establish current con-

ditions among the biota, particularly those

of the offshore area.

(b) Response of the various organisms to chron-

ic long term releases of small amounts of

petroleum.

Virginian Sea under various meteorolo-

qical conditions, including the develop-

ment of a reliable predictive model.

(d) The effects of various natural phenomena

on the weathering of petroleum, including

rates of degradation.

(e) Effects of the various constituents of

petroleum on organisms, particularly the

larval stages.

(f) The physical-chemical interrelationships

between sediments and the various constit-

uents of petroleum, including the persis-

tance of hydrocarbons in sediments.

(g) The effects of the incidental products of

the exploration for and exploitation of

petroleum resources upon the marine environ-

ment and biota. Included among these pro-

ducts are drilling mud, bleedwater, and

drill cuttings.

(5) The present Outer Continental Shelf Advisory

Committee, organized on an ad hoc basis by the

Secretary of Commerce and Resources, should be

continued. This committee now represents

agencies of the Commonwealth with interests

in OCS development. It should be formalized,

and charged with the responsibility to act in

an advisory capacity in matters relating to

- 89

the development of the OCS.

Recommendations for the Offshore Area

If Virginia should be awarded control of the off-

shore area, the following recommendations apply:

(1) Regulations similar to those in current use

by the Federal Government should be adopted

by Virginia to cover all phases of leasing,

exploration, production, and inspection of

the OCS lands and operations. These should

include the control of,., drilling.by-products

such as bleedwater drill cuttings and drilling

mud.

A state agency should be assigned responsi-

bility for the OCS lands in the offshore

area. The Virginia Marine Resources Commis-

sion would be a logical choice; however, VMRC

would have to be very greatly expanded, since

the magnitude of OCS activities it would oversee

would be enormous. Alternatively, a new agency,

properly funded, staffed and equipped could be

formed and assigned the responsibility, together

with the broad powers required.

In either case, close liaison should be

established with other state agencies having

an interest in the marine environment and its

resources, notably the Virginia Institute of

Marine Science, the State Water Control Board,

the Division of Mineral Resources, and,

should responsibility be assigned elsewhere,

the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

Should the federal government be awarded control of

the offshore area, the following recommendations apply:

(1) A state office having responsibility for

coordinating all contacts between the state

and the federal government and industrial

organizations should be created. It would fur-

ther serve as a focal point for Virginia in

matters concerning the development of the OCS.

close liaison should be maintained with state

agencies having an interest in the marine

environment and its resources, including the

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the

State Water Control Board, the Virginia Marine

Resources Commission and the Division of Mineral

Resources.

Recommendations for the Interface Area

(1) The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 should be

reviewed and modified to encourage local plan-

ning for wetlands alterations as opposed to

the case-by-case method currently in use.

Experience in Louisiana indicates the major

damage to the marine environment related to

offshore oil and gas activity was the result

of modifications to wetlands. Technical ad-

- 91

vice regarding massive wetlands alterations

as well as surveillance of such activities

should be provided local governments by appro-

priate state agencies such as the Virginia

Institute of Marine Science and the Virginia

Marine Resources Commission.

(2) Detailed criteria should be developed to be
utiliz'ed in the approval of permits for the

placing of structures (including pipelines)

in the marine environment. Methods of con-

struction, route selection, operational moni-

toring and requirements for removal upon ob-

solescence should be included. A detailed

study should be made of problems encountered

in states where offshore activity has been

going on (such as Louisiana and California)

and the procedures developed to handle them.

(3 Pipeline access through the Interface area

should be so controlled that the numbers of

pipeline corridors will be kept to a minimum.

Recommendations for the Onshore Area

(1) Local governments who are expected to bear

the impact of onshore development should be

encouraged with state assistance to plan for

and regulate projected growth in their areas,

in order that they may derive maximum benefit

from such growth at the least possible expense

to their traditional values and lifestyles.

Minimum state standards should be developed

to guide this process.

(2) A study should be conducted by the state as

to the most appropriate use of any revenues

received as a result of the development of

the OCS. One alternative to be considered

by such a.study would be the use of a portion

of the funds received to assist the localities

most heavily impacted in providing public

services.

(3) Recognizing that production of oil and gas

from the OCS can result in development on-

shore of large industrial complexes such as

refineries, tank farms and petrochemical

plants--all of which can be considered as

having an impact of regional as opposed to

local scale--it is recommended that the

Commonwealth act to increase its role in the

planning and control of these developments.

It appears appropriate to frame and enact

legislation requiring the state to develop

criteria and minimum standards to be used in

the review and processing of the siting of

these developments of greater than local im-

pact, thus contributing to orderly development.

Appendix A

U.S. v. Maine, et al
in 1969 the State o@ Maine granted exclus ive explo-

ratory rights in certain tracts of offshore lands beyond the

three-mile limit to King Resources. The United States there-

upon brought suit aga inst the 13 Atlantic Coastal States for

a determination of rights in all the lands and natural re-

sources of the bed of the Atlantic Ocean more than three geo-

graphical miles from the coastline. The federal action, in a

word, is in the nature of a suit to quiet title.

The coastal states, in response to the complaint of

the United States, denied the allegations and, by way of af-

firmative defense, alleged that they as successors in title

to certain grantees of the Crown of England are now and -

ever since the formation of the Union - have been e ntitled to

exercise exclusive dominion and control over the exploration

and development of such natural resources as may be found in,

on or about the seabed and subsoil underlying the Atlantic

Ocean adjacent to their coastlines. The States also asserted

that such power of control i.s not prohibited by the Consti-

tution, has never been delegated by the States to the federal

governme nt and that any attempt by the government to assert

such power violates the provisions of the Tenth Amendment to

the Constitution.

After the initial pleadings had been filed, the

United States moved for judgment on the pleadings; the States,

A-1

led by Virginia, countered with a motion for reference to a

Special Master, the States contending that, unlike other

states in the nation, the Atlantic States preceded the nation,

formed the government and, consequently, were possessed of

historical documents and other forms of evidence and claims,

all of which should be carefully reviewed prior to any deci-

sion by the High Court. In June, 1970, the Supreme Court

granted the motion of the States and referred the case to a

Special Master, a Senior United States Circuit Court Judge.

Hearings were held in Philadelphia for almost three

years, during which time thousands of documents, some in me-

dieval French, were submitted by both sides. Scholars from

the country's top universities and a retired judge from the

World Court were among the witnesses to the Court. Archives

from Virginia to London were scoured for relevant evidence.

old maps were discovered and offered to the Court. In addi-

tion to the evidence collectively submitted by the States,

Virginia offered comprehensive testimony with respect to the

assertion of authority, the exercise of authority and juris-

diction and the exploitation of Virginia's natural resources

by the Colony and State and its citizens.

The basic contention of the United States is that

the original colonies did not separately acquire ownership

of the three-mile belt in the adjacent sea or the soil under

it. Such ownership was acquired by the national government

after the formation of the Union and, consequently, by act

of Congress in 1953, the United States confirmed to all

A-2

coastal states' ownership of the bed of the three-mile ter-

ritorial sea adjacent to their coastal lines while at the

same time reasserting the federal claim to resources seaward

of the three-mile limit, subject to coastal states proving

claims to limits beyond the three-mile limit.

The basic contentions of the defendant states are

several:

(1) That under the law and practice of England

prior to and during the 17th and 18th cen-

turies, the seabed comprising the continen-

tal sh elf of England and of English posses-

sions was subject to an exclusive right of

exploitation in favor of the English Crown.

(2) In that period no generally recognized prin-

ciple of international law prohibited or

denied that exclusive right to the English

Crown.

(3) During the period 1492 to 1776, England ac-

quired by right of discovery or conquest and

the performance of symbolic acts of sover-

eignty over the territories now comprising

the defendant states and the adjacent con-

tinental shelf. During that period the Crown

granted its right of exploitation over part

or all of that continental shelf to Colonial

proprietorships and governments. For example,

the States assert that the 1607 and 1609

A-3

Virginia charters to the London Company

by King James I, in addition to grants of

land to the North, South and West, included

the sea, seabed, all islands and minerals

for a distance of 100 miles, the distance

Virginia and other states are claiming today.

(4) To continue, the States assert that at Ameri-

can Independence those rights passed individ-

ually to the successor independent states.

If any portion of the continental shelf was

not granted to the Colonial proprietorships and

governments by the Crown prior to 1776, such

portion passed individually to the independent

states at independence or, at the latest, by

the Peace of Paris in 1783. Virginia asserts,

for example, that the 1776 Constitution of

Virginia, and even the Code of Virginia today,

specifically incorporate the 100 mile boundary

first delineated by King James as the eastern

boundary of the Commonwealth.

(5) The states contend, too, that nothing has

occurred since 1783 which effectively divested

the defendant states.of the ownership of the

continental shelf. The states preserved their

respective rights when they entered into the

Articles of Confederation and into the Consti-

tution of the United States.

A-4

Thus, the legal lines are drawn in the latest and,

perhaps, the last of the big offshore lands cases. Much is

at stake; the case is expected to be argued in February,

1975, with a decision to be announced by June.

A-5

N AA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

38 14110845 8

COUTAL ;ONE FEB 3 :@,@1975
MF TION CENTER