dmiller

https://www.apnews.com/53230b6148db499ebc5c8e5792518f05

By Dave Monti

I attended a workshop on Wednesday titled “Fisheries in a New Era of Offshore Wind Development,” given by NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center from Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The workshop took place in the Coastal Institute Auditorium at the URI Bay Campus in Narragansett.

The aim of the seminar was to provide an overview of the development in the 15 ocean wind farm lease areas that have been granted. The seminar highlighted the development process; potential interactions with NOAA’s fisheries mission, including the impacts on their scientific enterprise; and a discussion of the major challenges and opportunities of achieving coexistence between sustainable fisheries and offshore renewable energy.

Jon Hare, director of NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center, said: “There are a lot of challenges, such as our ability to do all the regulatory reviews without additional staff, the pace and scale of development, and all the science questions that must be addressed in regard to fisheries, protected species and ocean ecosystems.

“We have opportunities, too, such as the formation of the Responsible Offshore Science Alliance, a group comprised of wind developers, fishing industry, states, federal government and energy companies,” Hare said.

The alliance aims to share research and develop research protocols for wind-farm development projects.

Additionally, Hare noted that there are fisheries that can possibly benefit from ocean wind farms, including commercial gill netters, hook-and-line fishermen and the recreational fishing sector.

Hats off to Hare and NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Region for reaching out to the community in this fashion. About 100 people attended the seminar and another 80 joined a webinar online.

Seminar on black sea bass

On Monday, you can expand your knowledge of black sea bass, their biology, migration patterns, regulations, fishing locations and more at a Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association Seminar. The seminar will be held at the West Warwick Elks Lodge, 60 Clyde St., West Warwick. Nonmembers are welcome to attend with a $10 donation to the association’s scholarship fund; members attend free. An optional dinner starting at 5:30 p.m., sponsored by the Elks Lodge, is available for an additional cost.

Speakers include Jason McNamee, chief of the Division of Marine Fisheries for the Rhode island Department of Environmental Management; Kraig Ruth, chairman of association’s Kayak Committee; and Capt. Eric Thomas of Teezer Fishing Charters. Visit www.risaa.org for additional information.

Chub mackerel fishing

Last week, chub mackerel started to school on the surface along our shore. On Sunday off Jamestown’s Beavertail Point in heavy fog, angler Kevin Fetzer of East Greenwich hooked up with one. “It gave me quite a fight on light tackle. We were rigged for bonito, so I threw a Deadly Dick at the mackerel school and hooked up. The fish ran three times before it was netted.”

Atlantic chub mackerel (Somber colias) are a fast-growing species that matures in two to three years and lives for as many as eight to 10 years. Chub mackerel are found on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and are silver in color with a greenish-blue back. The chub mackerel in our waters have larger eyes and they are a bit “chubbier” than your average mackerel. They are generally found within 10 miles of shore in water between 50 and 72 degrees. Young mackerel live around sandy beaches or kelp beds while adults are found in deeper water.

The chub mackerel is a healthy meal, high in protein and rich in omega-3 and unsaturated fatty acids. It is often baked and grilled whole. In Sicilian cuisine, it is also served filleted and raw, marinated in oil, lemon, salt and pepper.

Where’s the bite?

Striped bass and blue fish. Tom Giddings of the Tackle Box, in Warwick, said: “We have a great bluefish bite in Greenwich Bay off Oakland Beach and Goddard Park as well as in the Providence River. And, the striped bass bite is holding strong at Block Island.”

Bonito, false albacore, chub mackerel have been schooling along the southern coastal shore and off Newport, and at the mouth of the Sakonnet River. We ran into some furious chub mackerel surface frenzies on the surface off Beavertail on Sunday. Giddings said: “False albacore and bonito are running pretty good now off Newport.” Lucky Bait & Tackle in Warren reported a great false albacore and bonito bite last weekend off Newport and at the mouth of the Sakonnet.

Scup, black sea bass and fluke. Capt. Frank Blount of the Frances Fleet said: “We did chip away at some quality fluke with the fast drift early last week, but it was way too fast at times. When things slowed down, we chipped away some doormats to 10 pounds. There has been more than enough sea bass to catch while waiting for a fluke keeper.” Giddings said: “Black sea bass, Northern kingfish and scup fishing continues to be strong just about everywhere in the mid- and upper Narragansett Bay areas.” Ken Landry of Ray’s Bait & Tackle, in Warwick, said: “We have been sending customers down to the lower Bay to the bridges and south for fluke, scup and black sea bass.”

Freshwater fishing remains very good for bass, pike, perch and catfish. Giddings said: “Little pond behind Warwick Vets is yielding some nice largemouth and catfish for anglers. Overall the freshwater fishing for customers has been outstanding.”

Dave Monti holds a captain’s master license and a charter fishing license. He is a RISAA board member, a member of the RI Party & Charter Boat Association, the American Saltwater Guides Association and the RI Marine Fisheries Council. Follow Capt. Dave on twitter @CaptDaveMonti. He’ll be tweeting about ‘Where’s the bite’, fishing regulations, national fishing policy, and issues that impact the fish. Forward fishing news and photos to Capt. Dave at dmontifish@verizon.net or visitwww.noflukefishing.com.

https://www.providencejournal.com/sports/20190823/fishing-report-seminar-looked-at-effect-of-offshore-wind-farms

Connecticut Public Radio reported over the weekend that a final decision to approve the Vineyard Wind Project may not occur until the end 2020, adding a layer of doubt about when the offshore wind power project would actually start.

Last month, National Fishermen reported Vineyard Wind could miss its planned construction start of later this year due to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s delay in reviewing the 800-megawatt wind farm off the Massachusetts coast.

The Connecticut Public Radio report comes less than a week after the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, a seafood industry group that seeks to work with wind power projects, issued a statement saying it had not taken a position either for or against such offshore developments.

“During the development of the Vineyard Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement, RODA signed a memorandum of understanding with BOEM and NMFS in order to collaborate on the science and process of offshore wind energy development on the Atlantic OCS [lease plan],” the group said in a statement. “We value the relationships and progress we are advancing with both agencies as well as those with developers, including Vineyard Wind, through cooperation on our Joint Industry Task Force and the Responsible Offshore Science Alliance.”

In its statement, RODA said it still has concerns about Vineyard Wind.

Specifically, the group wants to avoid establishing a “negative precedent” for fisheries nationwide if the project moves forward without finding ways to mitigate issues that could impact the fisheries that depend on the waters just south of Martha’s Vineyard.

Commercial fishermen have provided data to help developers with turbine spacing and held discussions with stakeholders over designated transit lanes that would reduce the impact on fishermen.

“The fishing industry remains resolute that the spacing and orientation of turbines within a project area is one of the primary factors in determining what fisheries impacts will be, and thus demands the utmost diligence in consideration and analysis,” the organization said.

The new delay could affect Vineyard Wind’s ability to provide power at nearly half the cost that Massachusetts families currently pay, the radio report stated. A federal tax credit program is set to expire at the end of the year, although at least one Rhode Island congressman seeks an extension of the tax credit program through 2026.

RODA said it will continue to urge federal officials to take their time in reaching the right decision.

“[We] do not envy the challenges this project and its regulators face,” RODA said. “However, the decisions made can either be a model for public-private, interagency, and cross-sector coordination, or result in the perpetuation of conflict between fishing communities and developers and – worse – unnecessary damage to hard-working American citizens and our world-class marine resources.”

https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/vineyard-wind-project-faces-permitting-construction-delays

INITIALLY, MEMBERS of the Massachusetts congressional delegation were harshly critical of the Trump administration for putting off a decision about the environmental impact statement of Vineyard Wind, the 800 megawatt wind farm proposed for the waters off of Martha’s Vineyard.

Sen. Ed Markey said the move to delay the decision showed the Trump administration “will do everything in its power to cut corners for oil and gas projects while cutting the cord on the next frontier of clean energy development.” US Rep. Joseph Kennedy III accused the Trump administration of “delaying [the project] to death.”

In the letter below to two Trump cabinet secretaries, Markey, Kennedy, and others adopt a far more moderate stance, imploring two cabinet secretaries to find a way for fishing and offshore wind to coexist in “mixed-use regions offshore.”

Meanwhile, the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, which represents fishing interests, applauded the Trump administration for slowing the process down and gathering more data. 

---

The following is an August 16 letter to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross signed by Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy of Louisiana. US Reps. Joseph Kennedy III, Richard Neal, and William Keating of Massachusetts and Steve Scalise of Louisiana also signed on.

We write regarding the supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Vineyard Wind offshore energy project. As you know, the company is overseeing the development of the nation’s first utility scale offshore wind energy project, which the company says will generate enough power for approximately 400,000 homes.

We respect the need to do a cumulative impact analysis and understand the precedent this project will establish for permitting future offshore wind energy projects. It is important the departments consider concerns and evaluate all options to mitigate impacts to the New England commercial fishing industry and the environment. However, we also believe it is possible for multiple industries to coexist in mixed-use regions offshore. Therefore, we encourage your agencies to judiciously evaluate these questions to identify necessary steps to address any concerns, finalize the supplemental EIS promptly, and mitigate any additional delay that may threaten the overall project.

According to the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, the Vineyard Wind project will save Massachusetts ratepayers approximately 3.5cents/kWh, or $35.29/megawatt-hours (MWh) on average over the term of the contract with total net benefits of approximately $1.4 billion. The project also has the potential to reduce the state’s reliance on imported fuel including from some countries which may not share America’s values or commitment to protecting the environment. Further, Louisiana and Gulf Coast companies that have decades of experience working in the Gulf of Mexico are eager to make needed investments to support this project and future offshore wind energy projects.

We urge your departments to work together to find a solution that will address concerns raised by stakeholders, protect the environment, and allow the Vineyard Wind project to remain viable. We thank you both for your prompt attention to this issue and look forward to your reply.

---

The following statement was issued by the Regional Offshore Development Alliance, which represents fishing interests, on August 13.

In light of the recent decision by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to perform a cumulative impacts analysis regarding the proposed Vineyard Wind project, and the recently released communications between that agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance  would like to clarify certain statements and representations.

The RODA board of directors particularly notes the citation of its statement regarding turbine spacing and orientation in BOEM’s response to NMFS’ letter of nonconcurrence. To provide the full context of this statement, which is not readily apparent from BOEM’s letter, it is posted here in its entirety.

RODA has not taken a position to specifically support or oppose any offshore wind energy development. We have repeatedly stated in multiple formats that decisions on any new uses of the outer continental shelf that have the potential to affect commercial fishing must be based on a deliberative process and scientific record that fully incorporates the input of diverse fishing communities and avoids and minimizes such impacts to the maximum possible extent; and where impacts cannot be avoided effective mitigation strategies are developed to achieve co-existence.

During the development of the Vineyard Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), RODA signed a memorandum of understanding with BOEM and NMFS in order to collaborate on the science and process of offshore wind energy development on the Atlantic outer continental shelf. We value the relationships and progress we are advancing with both agencies as well as those with developers, including Vineyard Wind, through cooperation on our joint industry task force and the Responsible Offshore Science Alliance.

The size, pace, and scope of proposed offshore wind energy projects on the Atlantic outer continental shelf demand that lawmakers, regulators, developers, and the public all employ due caution to ensure that these developments can coexist with our traditional and historic fisheries. It would be unacceptable to put at stake hundreds of thousands of skilled fishing jobs, healthy and sustainable seafood, important traditional ecological knowledge, and the very fabric of our coastal cultures in a rush to welcome a new industry before the trade-offs are fully considered. In many early natural resource-based industries—including the fishing industry—a race to develop without adequate science and planning has resulted in avoidable resource catastrophes. We would like to avoid those outcomes, and taking time to understand the cumulative impacts of multiple imminent industrial projects is critical to doing so.

BOEM holds full authority to issue a decision on the DEIS’ preferred alternative, and the responsibility to ensure that its analyses are sound and complete. Commercial fishermen are extremely grateful to Secretary Bernhardt and his agency for taking the time to review the DEIS with the elevated level of scrutiny that such a monumental decision deserves. His reputation for a tireless work ethic, steady leadership, and concern for working Americans and coastal fishing communities is proving to be exceedingly genuine.

So too, our members are greatly appreciative of NMFS’ cooperation with BOEM in reviewing and assisting with the fisheries-related analysis in the document. Its leadership and staff have overcome short timelines to provide expert feedback on the spatial, ecological, and economic needs of our fishing communities as well as those of our shared marine ecosystems. We hope that NMFS will acquire full funding to help it keep up with the process and construct the collaborative science necessary to eliminate uncertainty for both industries.

Despite the importance of our relationships, RODA has repeatedly expressed concern regarding several elements of the proposed Vineyard Wind project. Primarily we are concerned with its potential for setting a negative precedent if it proceeds in a way that does not fully minimize harm to sustainable commercial fishing practices. These concerns were raised early and often by RODA, our individual members, NMFS, and others.

To cite some examples:

• Fishing businesses provided their own proprietary data to project developers and BOEM as early as 2017 to support their requests for turbine spacing and orientation that would maximally accommodate fishing.
• Dozens of fishermen and others engaged in exhaustive meetings and provided additional confidential information in order to “negotiate” for the designation of transit lanes through the New England wind energy areas.
• Fishery representatives have consistently asked the collection of even a few seasons’ worth of baseline surveys against which to measure the impacts of an offshore wind energy facility in order to inform the design of future projects (and BOEM’s own guidelines require such surveys to begin two years before construction). These requests were made early and often; in but one example, in 2012, the Fisheries Survival Fund commented on “the need for comprehensive baseline knowledge of the benthic biological environment . . . so that impacts of leasing, site assessment activities, and wind mill installation, maintenance, and decommissioning [for the Vineyard Wind project] can be assessed.” The Vineyard Wind draft studies plan was only submitted on February 25, 2019, and NMFS was asked to review it within four days. NMFS stated at the time that “the submitted plan lack[ed] sufficient detail and critical information to evaluate its efficacy.”
• RODA directly requested the developer to engage in an inclusive, transparent process to determine mitigation plans including disruption payments, if necessary.

These, and many other unresolved interactions are absent from the DEIS and current project plans. This input has not been delivered at the “eleventh hour” and all occurred well within BOEM’s permitting timeline during the appropriate comment periods and as soon as the information to inform them was publicly available.

Through the memorandum of understanding and the federal environmental review process, BOEM has been attentive to our concerns and a willing partner in working toward better long-term approaches to coexistence. That said, the mere citation of RODA’s concerns does not amount to the full evidence-based analysis that should be the basis of important federal decisions. The fishing industry remains resolute that the spacing and orientation of turbines within a project area is one of the primary factors in determining what fisheries impacts will be, and thus demands the utmost diligence in consideration and analysis.

It is furthermore unclear how Secretary Bernhardt could issue a decision on the DEIS, when critical impact categories such as fishing vessel transit, disruption payments, baseline ecological information, radar interference, and others are yet to be settled.

How could one possibly know that the project is designed to maximize coexistence with fishing without knowing these project elements, especially when what is known—the proposed project layout—is not consistent with the best available information?

As one of the first US large infrastructure projects to be reviewed under the new “One Federal Decision” directive, and the first large-scale offshore wind energy proposal on the outer continental shelf, we do not envy the challenges this project and its regulators face. However, the decisions made can either be a model for public-private, interagency, and cross-sector coordination, or result in the perpetuation of conflict between fishing communities and developers and—worse—unnecessary damage to hard-working American citizens and our world-class marine resources. We urge everyone to do their due diligence and get it right.

2 views on Vineyard Wind delay

As the Trump administration takes steps to expedite fossil fuel projects and reduce environmental regulations, it has veered in the opposite direction on offshore wind, delaying a highly anticipated project in Massachusetts.

Vineyard Wind was set to be the country’s largest offshore wind farm, with construction expected to start this year on a project that could power more than 400,000 homes. But this month, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) said it was expanding its review of the environmental impacts of the project to include a “more robust” analysis of the potential cumulative impact if other offshore wind farms are built.

The expanded review is potentially broad, with ramifications for Vineyard Wind and several other projects. And yet, the office has provided almost no details on the scope. The project developers said that they had not received any documents showing parameters of the review.

Vineyard Wind was to signal the arrival of the U.S. offshore wind industry, the first in a line of large developments. This delay threatens to slow the progress of an energy source that is vital for East Coast states trying to move away from fossil fuels and meet ambitious climate targets.

Vineyard Wind’s developers—Avangrid Renewables, a subsidiary of a Spanish energy company, and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, a Danish investment firm—were racing to begin construction before the end of the year so the project would qualify for a tax credit that is set to end at that time.

While the developers say they are still committed to the project, the potential loss of the tax credit could lead them to rethink their plans.

Environmental advocates and other stakeholder groups have long called for regulators to fully consider cumulative effects of related energy projects, including environmental and global warming impacts. The problem, some critics say, is that there appears to be a double standard in this administration.

For example, the Trump administration, shortly after it took office, cancelled a comprehensive environmental review of the federal coal-leasing program—including the program’s impact on climate change. New leasing had been paused during the review, and the Trump administration ordered it to resume.

In June, the White House Council on Environmental Quality proposed eliminating separate cumulative impact assessments of greenhouse gas emissions from how the government meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). “I very much doubt the courts, which have a long history of precedents interpreting NEPA, are going to uphold the Trump CEQ’s proposed approach, but it certainly represents a concerted effort to avoid cumulative impacts analyses entirely when it comes to projects that increase greenhouse gas emissions,” said Michael Saul of the Center for Biological Diversity.

There is also a reluctance to conduct cumulative impact assessments for offshore fossil fuel projects, said Kristen Monsell, an attorney focusing on offshore oil and gas projects with the Center for Biological Diversity. “I can’t think of an instance in which BOEM did an additional cumulative impact analysis on its own accord without being forced to do so by litigation,” Monsell said of offshore oil and gas projects.

“The Department of Interior has practically tripped over itself in speeding up the approval of fossil fuel projects and now they are slow-walking this renewable project,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “That could fundamentally damage the economics of the project.”

Avangrid Renewables said in a statement that it remains committed to the $2.8 billion project but must revise its schedule because “the original timeline is no longer feasible.”

“Offshore wind is a new area of development—what the whole picture looks like is changing pretty rapidly as interest increases,” said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. “So it wouldn’t surprise me that this is just sort of a normal hiccup for an agency trying to get through the full process for its first major project.”

‘How Far Out into the Future Do You Go?’

BOEM released its draft environmental impact assessment of Vineyard Wind in December 2018, and a public comment period ended in February.

The report said the project would have a “negligible” to “moderate” environmental impact, but predicted moderate to major short-term economic impact on commercial and recreational fishing. It also assessed the cumulative impact of seven other proposed offshore wind farms, finding that together they would not pose significant risk to air and water quality and marine life.

The landmark National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA, first passed in 1969, requires agencies to carry out environmental impact statements of any major federal action and project, and to consider impacts not just on a case-by-case basis but the cumulative effects of many projects like it. NEPA has been a crucial tool for environmental activists; they have succeeded in slowing or blocking numerous projects over the years, including the Keystone XL oil pipeline, with lawsuits charging that the federal government had failed to assess environmental impacts as the law requires. Allies of the fossil fuel industries have long viewed NEPA as an impediment to energy development.

Gerrard said it is highly unusual to require extensive new analysis after the draft assessment has been published.

“Had BOEM called for extensive cumulative impact analysis during the scoping process, that would be fairly standard,” he said. “But demanding a major expansion after publication of the draft EIS is very unusual and smacks of the sort of bureaucratic impediments to development that Trump campaigned against.”

BOEM said it decided to order the additional review now because “a greater buildout of offshore wind capacity is more reasonably foreseeable than was analyzed in the initial draft EIS.” Other government agencies and stakeholders supported an extended analysis, including an EPA official who urged the agency to expand the scope of its cumulative impact analysis with a focus on impacts to the commercial fishing industry, the marine environment, and also how the project could help states meet clean energy goals.

BOEM spokesperson Stephen Boutwell said the agency is still determining what would be included in the supplemental review.

Expanding the scope too far would “get into the world of speculation,” Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School, said. “How far out into the future do you go in trying to anticipate what impacts might happen and what actions might be approved?”

Fishing Industry Complaints and Change at DOI

The idea that regulators should consider the cumulative effects on fishing of all wind farms that may be built, and not just the one whose application is pending, is in line with what fishing industry groups have been seeking.

One of those groups, the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, praised the decision. The group had asked that the government’s review include all wind farms that likely may be built. Focusing solely on Vineyard Wind, the group has raised concerns that wind turbines in the project be at least one mile apart, which they say is about the minimum distance fishermen need to safely navigate. The current project proposal has turbines placed 0.75 to 1 mile apart.

As recently as June, Vineyard Wind’s developers said they had worked out many of their differences with the fishing industry and were on track.

Then the process slowed down, first in July when BOEM notified developers that there would be a delay, and then the announcement last week that the office was expanding its review.

One of the key changes this winter and spring was a shift in leadership of the Department of the Interior, which oversees BOEM. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who had made public statements supporting offshore wind energy, resigned amid ethics probes, and David Bernhardt, a former oil industry lobbyist, took over.

Did the change at the top matter for this project?

Jeremy Firestone, director of the Center for Research in Wind at the University of Delaware, said Zinke was a promoter of wind energy, but it is not yet clear whether Bernhardt is playing an active role.

Regardless, he said, “There certainly appears to be some unfairness” in the way the Trump administration applies environmental rules to the offshore wind industry compared to the fossil fuel industry.

Saul, a senior attorney for public lands at the Center for Biological Diversity, said his organization has commented on at least 50 oil and gas lease sales on federal lands under the Trump administration and none have included meaningful environmental cumulative impact assessments.

“We constantly fight tooth and nail in administrative processes and in the courts to attempt to get Interior to look at the cumulative impact of fossil fuel projects, and they are constantly trying to avoid doing so, looking only at individual projects in isolation,” he said.

Setting Expectations for the Wind Industry

The country is on track to go from just one operational wind farm—a 30-megawatt project with five turbines off Rhode Island—to a host of projects along the East Coast. Several states have set targets for offshore wind energy development, led by New York, which is aiming for 9,000 megawatts by 2035, and their ability to meet their clean energy goals depends on these projects.

Some of the recently announced projects would be larger than Vineyard Wind, including a 1.1 gigawatt wind farm that has won a state contract in New Jersey, but Vineyard Wind has a head start.

As the first large project to go through the federal approval process, Vineyard Wind is helping to set expectations about how long and how expensive that process will be for other projects.

If this ends with the project being canceled, “that wouldn’t be a very good signal to the marketplace,” Firestone said.

But he is not surprised to see delays. “I would expect until we build a few of these that there would be some bumps along the road,” he said.

Tom Harries, a wind analyst for BloombergNEF, said a rigorous review by the government means the result will likely be more enduring and able to survive legal challenges that may arise.

“Compare it to the UK, where a few years ago a number of projects which had initially been granted permits to build were taken to court by environmentalists claiming the permitting body had not accounted for the cumulative impact of the projects,” he said. “This delayed the projects and added years and lots of uncertainty to project schedules.”

As clean energy advocates seek to make the rapid transition to renewable energy that scientists say is necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, the country’s existing environmental laws may continue to slow down that transition, legal experts say.

“This example highlights that our current legal process for environmental reviews and protections may at times hinder our ability to foster a rapid energy transition even when there is a desire to do so,” Vizcarra said.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19082019/vineyard-wind-offshore-renewable-energy-delay-boem-environmental-cumulative-review-nepa-massachusetts

Offshore energy develop Vineyard Wind backpedaled this week from its earlier warnings, saying it intends to carry forward with plans for building 84 turbines in New England waters, even as a revised environmental review raises more questions about its future.

“Company shareholders have affirmed a commitment to deliver a proposed 800-megawatt wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts, albeit with a delayed project schedule,” Vineyard Wind announced in statement days after the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced it would undertake a sweeping reassessment of environmental impacts.

That assurance stood in contrast to the earlier reaction from Vineyard Wind, when company officials learned BOEM would not be finalizing an environmental impact statement as they had hoped for by mid-July.

The company, a joint venture between Avengrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, had warned the $2.8 billion project would be in jeopardy if the review document was not forthcoming by the end of August.

The environmental review stalled for months when NOAA Fisheries refused to assent to moving the project forward, citing unresolved concerns of the commercial fishing industry, including safe transit lanes, distance and orientation between turbine towers to allow continued fishing, and other issues.

Without a commitment from the federal agencies, Vineyard Wind officials said they might not obtain contracts and commitments for construction services and vessels such as lift boats from the Gulf of Mexico. That kicked Massachusetts politicians into high gear, with Gov. Charlie Baker meeting in Washington with Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt to urge a speedy resolution of the agencies’ differences.

Instead Bernhardt directed BOEM to look into the wider potential cumulative environmental effects if Vineyard Wind and other planned wind power arrays are built. That revised study will extend to projects in the New York Bight where developers Equinor and Ørsted have power purchase agreements with New York and New Jersey.

That review could extend to March 2020 – the regulatory two-year timeline for BOEM to complete a draft environmental impact statement. The agency has yet to detail what further issues the expanded review will cover.

The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, a coalition of fishing groups and communities, said the layout of turbine arrays is foremost among its members’ concerns. But still more information is needed, the group said this week.

“It is furthermore unclear how Secretary Bernhardt could issue a decision on the DEIS, when critical impact categories such as fishing vessel transit, disruption payments, baseline ecological information, radar interference and others are yet to be settled. How could one possibly know that the project is designed to maximize coexistence with fishing without knowing these project elements, especially when what is known—the proposed project layout—is not consistent with the best available information?”

Vineyard Wind says it will carry on amid new review

August 14, 2019 – The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance has produced the following document which outlines its activities over the past year.

 

Roda Year in Review 8-8-19

To download, click here: https://rodafisheries.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Roda-Year-in-Review-8-8-19.pdf

August 13, 2019 – The following was released by the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance:

In light of the recent decision by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to perform a cumulative impacts analysis regarding the proposed Vineyard Wind project, and the recently released communications between that agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), RODA would like to clarify certain statements and representations.

The RODA Board of Directors particularly notes the citation of its statement regarding turbine spacing and orientation in BOEM’s response to NMFS’ letter of nonconcurrence. To provide the full context of this statement, which is not readily apparent from BOEM’s letter, it is posted here in its entirety.

RODA has not taken a position to specifically support or oppose any offshore wind energy development. We have repeatedly stated in multiple formats that decisions on any new uses of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that have the potential to affect commercial fishing must be based on a deliberative process and scientific record that fully incorporates the input of diverse fishing communities and avoids and minimizes such impacts to the maximum possible extent; and where impacts cannot be avoided effective mitigation strategies are developed to achieve co-existence.

During the development of the Vineyard Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), RODA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with BOEM and NMFS in order to collaborate on the science and process of offshore wind energy development on the Atlantic OCS. We value the relationships and progress we are advancing with both agencies as well as those with developers, including Vineyard Wind, through cooperation on our Joint Industry Task Force and the Responsible Offshore Science Alliance.

The size, pace, and scope of proposed offshore wind energy projects on the Atlantic OCS demand that lawmakers, regulators, developers, and the public all employ due caution to ensure that these developments can coexist with our traditional and historic fisheries. It would be unacceptable to put at stake hundreds of thousands of skilled fishing jobs, healthy and sustainable seafood, important traditional ecological knowledge, and the very fabric of our coastal cultures in a rush to welcome a new industry before the trade-offs are fully considered. In many early natural resource-based industries—including the fishing industry—a race to develop without adequate science and planning has resulted in avoidable resource catastrophes. We would like to avoid those outcomes, and taking time to understand the cumulative impacts of multiple imminent industrial projects is critical to doing so.

BOEM holds full authority to issue a decision on the DEIS’ preferred alternative, and the responsibility to ensure that its analyses are sound and complete. Commercial fishermen are extremely grateful to Secretary Bernhardt and his agency for taking the time to review the DEIS with the elevated level of scrutiny that such a monumental decision deserves. His reputation for a tireless work ethic, steady leadership, and concern for working Americans and coastal fishing communities is proving to be exceedingly genuine.

So too, are our members greatly appreciative of NMFS’ cooperation with BOEM in reviewing and assisting with the fisheries-related analysis in the document. Its leadership and staff have overcome short timelines to provide expert feedback on the spatial, ecological, and economic needs of our fishing communities as well as those of our shared marine ecosystems. We hope that NMFS will acquire full funding to help it keep up with the process and construct the collaborative science necessary to eliminate uncertainty for both industries.

Despite the importance of our relationships, RODA has repeatedly expressed concern regarding several elements of the proposed Vineyard Wind project. Primarily we are concerned with its potential for setting a negative precedent if it proceeds in a way that does not fully minimize harm to sustainable commercial fishing practices. These concerns were raised early and often by RODA, our individual members, NMFS, and others.

To cite some examples:

• Fishing businesses provided their own proprietary data to project developers and BOEM as early as 2017 to support their requests for turbine spacing and orientation that would maximally accommodate fishing.
• Dozens of fishermen and others engaged in exhaustive meetings and provided additional confidential information in order to “negotiate” for the designation of transit lanes through the New England wind energy areas.
• Fishery representatives have consistently asked the collection of even a few seasons’ worth of baseline surveys against which to measure the impacts of an offshore wind energy facility in order to inform the design of future projects (and BOEM’s own guidelines require such surveys to begin two years before construction). These requests were made early and often; in but one example, in 2012 the Fisheries Survival Fund commented on “The need for comprehensive baseline knowledge of the benthic biological environment . . . so that impacts of leasing, site assessment activities, and wind mill installation, maintenance, and decommissioning [for the Vineyard Wind project] can be assessed.” The Vineyard Wind draft studies plan was only submitted on February 25th, 2019, and NMFS was asked to review it within four days. NMFS stated at the time that “the submitted plan lack[ed] sufficient detail and critical information to evaluate its efficacy.”
• RODA directly requested the developer to engage in an inclusive, transparent process to determine mitigation plans including disruption payments, if necessary.

These, and many other unresolved interactions are absent from the DEIS and current project plans. This input has not been delivered at the “eleventh hour” and all occurred well within BOEM’s permitting timeline during the appropriate comment periods and as soon as the information to inform them was publicly available.

Through the MoU and the federal environmental review process, BOEM has been attentive to our concerns and a willing partner in working toward better long-term approaches to coexistence. That said, the mere citation of RODA’s concerns does not amount to the full evidence-based analysis that should be the basis of important federal decisions. The fishing industry remains resolute that the spacing and orientation of turbines within a project area is one of the primary factors in determining what fisheries impacts will be, and thus demands the utmost diligence in consideration and analysis.

It is furthermore unclear how Secretary Bernhardt could issue a decision on the DEIS, when critical impact categories such as fishing vessel transit, disruption payments, baseline ecological information, radar interference and others are yet to be settled. How could one possibly know that the project is designed to maximize coexistence with fishing without knowing these project elements, especially when what is known—the proposed project layout—is not consistent with the best available information?

As one of the first U.S. large infrastructure projects to be reviewed under the new “One Federal Decision” directive, and the first large-scale offshore wind energy proposal on the OCS, we do not envy the challenges this project and its regulators face. However, the decisions made can either be a model for public-private, interagency, and cross-sector coordination, or result in the perpetuation of conflict between fishing communities and developers and—worse—unnecessary damage to hard-working American citizens and our world-class marine resources. We urge everyone to do their due diligence and get it right.

Before the US president Donald Trump administration ordered a delay of the country’s first offshore wind farm late last week, it was the belief of at least some of its officials that making the changes requested by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would be disastrous and NMFS approval was not needed to move ahead anyhow, Undercurrent News has learned.

Interior secretary David Bernhardt on Friday told Bloomberg that he has ordered an additional study by his department of the Vineyard Wind project, a plan to build more than 80 giant wind turbines on a 118-mile stretch of ocean some 15 miles from the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, before going ahead with a final environmental impact statement (EIS).

The decision puts in jeopardy the $2.8 billion project, which had promised to supply a combined 800 megawatts of power to at least 400,000 New England homes and businesses but had worried the commercial fishing industry. It was scheduled to begin construction this year and be operational by early 2022.

Bernhardt reportedly told the news service that it’s important the impact of the project be thoroughly studied. “For offshore wind to thrive on the outer continental shelf, the federal government has to dot their I’s and cross their T’s,” he said.

A Vineyard Wind spokesman called the Interior Department’s decision “a surprise and disappointment” and said his company urged the federal government to “complete the review as quickly as possible”.

As reported last week by Undercurrent News, the US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has seemingly dragged its feet on Vineyard Wind’s final EIS since receiving at least two letters from Michael Pentony, the regional administrator for NMFS’ greater Atlantic office.

One 44-page letter, sent in March to James Bennett, head of BOEM’s Office of Renewable Programs, provided a detailed critique of a half dozen alternative approaches for the wind farm under consideration.  Another short three-page letter sent by Pentony on April 16, restated some of the same concerns, including NMFS’ request for more space between the turbines and an overall different directional orientation.

“We reviewed your preferred alternative and associated rationale provided in your letter dated April 3, 2019, and are writing to inform you that [NMFS] does not concur with your choice of a preferred alternative,” the second letter states.

A copy of the second letter was earlier obtained by Reuters and has since also been secured by Undercurrent.

Many of NMFS’ concerns echo those expressed earlier by the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA), a group of 160 commercial harvesters and processors with vessels spread across nine states and operating in about 30 different fisheries. RODA fears the disruption caused by the large towers and their transmission cables will interfere with the harvesting of cod, squid, oysters, lobsters and other species as well as a major transit route for scallop and other fishermen.

RODA executive director Annie Hawkins could not be reached for comment for this article.

Delays could prevent tax credits

If BOEM was prepared to hold up the final EIS for the Vineyard Wind project, that wasn’t clear from a 12-page letter sent on April 26 to Samuel Rauch, NMFS’ deputy assistant administrator for regulatory programs, and signed by William Brown, BOEM’s chief environmental officer. It advised that the agency has “concerns with the April 16 NMFS response”.

“If NMFS does not concur, however, we are prepared to note its non-concurrence in the final EIS and the [record of decision], and we are also prepared to note which if any of the alternatives in the EIS NMFS does prefer,” Brown’s letter stated.

Brown expressed a sense of urgency.

Vineyard Wind, a New Bedford, Massachusetts-based joint venture between Avangrid, a division of the Spanish wind giant Iberdrola, and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, a Denmark-based investment firm, had hoped to begin construction in 2019, putting the first turbine in the seabed in 2021 and having all of its turbines operational by 2022.

The project has environmentalists as well as several prominent Massachusetts political leaders on its side, as it’s expected to provide several hundred jobs while reducing carbon emissions by over 1.6 million metric tons per year.

However, accepting the changes NMFS and the commercial fishing industry seeks, including surveys of multiple species in the affected areas, would “make it impossible for Vineyard Wind to commence commercial operations in time to meet the requirements of its power purchase agreement (PPA),” Brown said, referencing the deal the wind farm has with the local utility.

The delays would further prevent Vineyard “from qualifying for a federal investment tax credit, which in turn would likely prevent the company from delivering power at the price agreed to in the PPA”, he advised.

If BOEM were to go along with NMFS’ suggested changes, he said, it “would be approving a project with very little likelihood of eventual construction”.

No explanation for the delay

Despite the strong statements in Wood’s letter, BOEM began to telegraph that it might not move forward with its final EIS. In early July when it notified project officials that the government was “not yet prepared” to issue the document, as expected.

No explanation was offered for the delay. One source speculated to Undercurrent that it may be due to president Trump’s administration being unwilling to have its “One Federal Decision” policy tested under less than perfect circumstances.

The policy, issued two years ago by executive order, accelerates the permitting process by making one federal agency the “lead action agency” and establishing that separate permits are no longer required from the other agencies.

BOEM is the lead action agency for the Vineyard Wind project.

BOEM may be able to move forward with a final EIS after having it reviewed by the other federal agencies with roles in the permitting process for major infrastructure projects, including the US Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS. However, it is not clear that it is required, and the Vineyard Wind project decision is likely to get tested in court, the source said.

Letter shows BOEM was ready to move ahead on US wind farm without NMFS blessing

VINEYARD WIND’S TURBINE LAYOUT is likely one of the sticking points that prompted federal regulators late last week to expand their environmental review of the wind farm to include an analysis of how it would interact with a host of other projects in the planning stages along the East Coast.

While Massachusetts politicians accused the Trump administration of delaying the project to death, officials at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have been struggling with whether to look at the wind farm in isolation or as the first of many to come. Vineyard Wind officials sometimes feel as if they are being penalized for going first, with the delays throwing off their aggressive construction timetable and threatening to derail the project.

The project’s turbine layout is a good example of the problem. Vineyard Wind has approximately 84 turbines arranged on a northwest-southeast orientation, with the turbines nearly 9/10ths of a nautical mile apart. Most fishing interests are pushing for an east-west orientation, with the turbines separated by 1 nautical mile at a minimum.

It sounds like the two sides are not that far apart, but there doesn’t appear to be much room for compromise. Officials say any significant change in the layout of the wind farm would require Vineyard Wind to redo ocean bottom survey research that would not only cost tens of millions of dollars more but delay construction for a year or two.

Lars Pedersen, the CEO of Vineyard Wind, said his company consulted with fishing groups before deciding to go with the northwest-southeast orientation, which he said was favored by New Bedford scallopers who believed the layout would allow them to travel more quickly through the wind farm to their fishing grounds.

Pedersen acknowledged other fishing groups favor an east-west orientation, and said his company may adopt that layout on future wind farm projects. But he said his company made the decision to go with the northwest-southeast layout on this project because the scallop industry is so important financially to the region.

“You can’t do both,” Pedersen said of the two types of wind farm orientations.

Annie Hawkins, executive director of the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, a group of fishing interests that formed last year, said the east-west layout is favored by her organization because it would lessen, but not eliminate, impacts on fishing activity in the wind farm area. She said most fish distribute along “benthic curves” that run east to west in the area of the wind farm.

Hawkins also said Vineyard Wind can’t be viewed in isolation. As a standalone project, its layout isn’t a huge problem, she said. But with other proposed wind farms off the coast leaning toward an east-west orientation, Vineyard Wind’s layout, if approved as is, could end up being different from the others and make navigation very difficult.

“This one would be an outlier,” Hawkins said. “It just doesn’t line up.”

The distance between turbines is another key point of contention between the fishing and offshore wind industries. Pedersen said 9/10ths of a nautical mile – the distance between turbines in Vineyard Wind’s layout – is roughly the distance from home plate at Fenway Park to Trinity Church in Copley Square. He said the distance between turbines in Europe is typically less – around 6/10ths of a nautical miles.

Hawkins said most fishing groups would prefer more space as they move up and down the lanes between turbines. She said the European example cited by Pedersen really doesn’t apply because fishing in the midst of European wind farms is prohibited, except in the United Kingdom.

South Fork Wind Farm, being developed by Orsted Offshore Wind and Eversource Energy off the coast of Rhode Island and Long Island, is proposing an east-west orientation with turbines spaced 1 nautical mile apart. The spacing on a north-south basis, however, is less, prompting complaints from fishermen. (Early this year, Orsted partnered with the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance to improve communication between offshore wind developers and the fishing industry.)

There is also a dispute about how much fishing actually occurs within the footprint of the Vineyard Wind project. Vineyard Wind paid for a study done by King & Associates of Plymouth that estimated the total value of the catch in the area was $471,242 a year. Vineyard Wind officials say they intend to make significantly more money available to mitigate any losses incurred by fishermen in dealing with the wind farm.

Hawkins said other studies suggest the fish catch in the area is larger. She noted a study done by Thomas Sproul, an associate professor of economics at the University of Rhode Island, found the King & Associates study undervalued the potential impact of the wind farm.

“I believe that the King Report is very far from a comprehensive and objective evaluation of economic loss to MA commercial fishing,” Sproul said in the summary of his analysis, which cited several specific deficiencies. “That said, the King Report does contain some elements of truth, in that the science is inconclusive in many cases and that exact evaluation of ‘exposure’ versus ‘actual losses’ needs to be taken into account in any mitigation evaluation.”

Gov. Charlie Baker, a champion of the Vineyard Wind project, met in Washington with top officials at the Interior Department on July 29 to learn more about their concerns and said afterward that he planned to develop a “cure plan” over the next few days to address them.

No one has specified exactly what needs to be cured. Baker said a number of federal agencies have raised concerns, but Reuters reported that one of the major roadblocks is the impact the wind farm would have on the fishing industry. The news agency reported that the National Marine Fisheries Service declined to support Vineyard Wind’s environmental permit because the project failed to fully address the concerns of the fishing industry, with orientation and the distance between turbines the two most prominent issues.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an Interior Department agency, last week decided to expand its environmental review of Vineyard Wind project to better understand the cumulative impact of the many wind farm projects being proposed along the eastern seaboard. Many in the fishing industry say the approach has merit, but it’s tough on Vineyard Wind, which has said it would be very difficult to move forward with the project in its current configuration unless its environmental impact statement is approved by the end of this month.

Hawkins is not optimistic that a cure plan that satisfies all sides can be developed. “I don’t think you’re going to see a lot of concessions from fishermen,” she said. “I don’t really see a way the fishing industry is going to come out and say it’s not such a big deal.”

Vineyard Wind layout tough issue for regulators