By David Wojick
“Damn the whales, full speed ahead” seems to be the offshore wind policy of Biden’s NOAA. They now propose to approve yet another site survey, just 10 miles off Atlantic City. These surveys are the top suspect for the recent wave of dead whales, centered on New Jersey.
See the proposal at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/30/2023-06594/takes-of-marine-mammals-incidental-to-specified-activities-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to
The site is a big one because the offshore wind project is huge. Phase 1 is a whopping 1,500 MW, which means over 100 monster turbine towers. The survey area is around 1,500,000 acres or an incredible 2,300 square miles.
Ironically the project is called Atlantic Shores, which is where all the dead whales are washing up. In fact this is basically a renewal of a prior permit. NOAA acts as though nothing has changed, ignoring the horrible New Jersey whale deaths.
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is taking public comments on this preposterous proposal, details below.
The proposal’s cursory environmental impact assessment is ridiculously simple minded. NMFS itself predicts that a great many (supposedly protected by them) marine mammals will be subjected to unsafe levels of survey noise. See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-03/AtlanticShoresHRG_2023_Proposed_IHA_OPR1.pdf
NOAA predicts the number of adverse impacts by species, but here are the staggering numbers by category:
42 Whales
2,534 Dolphins
142 Porpoises
1,472 Seals
Total = 4,190 adversely impacted marine mammals
Here is NOAA’s basic argument:
“….only Level B harassment is proposed for authorization, which NMFS expects would be of a lower severity, predominately in the form of avoidance of the sound sources that may cause a temporary abandonment of the location during active source use that may result in a temporary interruption of foraging activities for some species. NMFS does not expect that the proposed activity will have long-term or permanent impacts as the acoustic source would be mobile and would leave the area within a specific amount of time for which the animals could return to the area.”
In short these thousands of large animals will get the hell out of the way and come home when the survey is over, in a year or so. Apparently NMFS thinks this massive forced relocation is harmless. Despite having hundreds of scientists on staff they cannot think of how it might be harmful.
Here are two obviously harmful possibilities, among many.
First, the site is deliberately in a relatively low ship traffic area, surrounded by high traffic zones. This is one of the busiest ship traffic areas in the world. Being forced to relocate into higher traffic areas is virtually certain to increase the incidence of fatal ship strikes.
Second, moving this many animals into territory already occupied by similar animals should greatly increase the population densities for each species. But the food supply remains the same, which could lead to food scarcity.
The treatment of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale is especially egregious. NOAA says this:
“…the size of the survey area (5,868 km2) in comparison with the entire migratory habitat for the North Atlantic right whale (BIA of 269,448 km2) is small, representing 2.11 percent of the entire migratory corridor.”
Right Whales migrate through the area twice a year, going between offshore Georgia and New England so the “corridor” is indeed large, but this is irrelevant. What is crucial is that the survey area is about 35 miles wide East to West and almost all of the migrating whales presently pass through this space. Thus the survey has the potential effect of blocking the migration, or at least seriously disrupting it, taking nearly 100% of the needed space not 2.11%.
Despite all of the above predicted and potential impacts, NOAA maintains that this proposed authorization is exempt from the environmental impact assessment requirements of NEPA. They specifically claim there is “no anticipated serious injury or mortality”.
They should anticipate a little harder. NEPA requires assessment if injury is reasonably likely. Injury and death certainly are reasonably likely here, to thousands of supposedly protected marine mammals, including the severely endangered Right Whales.
More deeply, the Atlantic Shores Wind Project has yet to be approved and may never be. Hugely disruptive site surveys should not be authorized until the Project is approved.
Here is the basic comment statement: “Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov “
I suggest as an email subject line: “Comment on proposed Atlantic Shores IHA”. Simple objection is sufficient but specific arguments are always useful. Anyone can comment.
In the offshore wind stampede Biden’s National Marine Fisheries Service has lost sight of its mission to protect marine mammals.
Just say no to NOAA.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.
For origins see
http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see
http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/
Available for confidential research and consulting.
It’s OK, the ChatBot told them to do it:
Headline:“New study reveals disturbing amount of influence AI chatbots can have on human moral judgment
here
Alarmist ‘wisdom’ has it….
“”Thousands of whales are being killed by passing ships. Can we save them?””
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/09/whales-killed-passing-ships-save-alert-detection
It’s shipping – got that?
Yes they claim ship strikes somehow exonerate offshore wind, but the opposite is true: “First, the site is deliberately in a relatively low ship traffic area, surrounded by high traffic zones. This is one of the busiest ship traffic areas in the world. Being forced to relocate into higher traffic areas is virtually certain to increase the incidence of fatal ship strikes.”
Operational wind arrays are even worse.
It’s a stretch to say the least that all of a sudden – coincidental with surveys and offshore wind developments – whales have, allegedly, suddenly started throwing themselves in front of shipping.
But then, as we know, with green ‘tech’ no sacrifice [for Gaia] is too great.
What an obvious and direct example of how weaponized the government has become, especially the EPA. As a manager in the mineral exploration business I have been involved in permitting exploratory drill projects, most recently in Nevada and California. ALWAYS a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review was required. Once in the Panamint Mountains in California, the NEPA finding was negative, due to a 20-year-old report of a nesting hawk, forcing us to fly BLM biologists in a helicopter to search for hawks, none of which were located. Now no NEPA review is needed, for a large and disruptive project, in the face of wildlife death and threat? How different the same law is, depending on your perceived political correctness.
“a 20-year-old report of a nesting hawk”
And which might have been reported by a non bird expert- just to disrupt the drilling.
Here in MA, if anyone tresspasses on to a private forest- and claims they found any rare species and reports it to the state’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program- that report can hold up a proposed logging project. Here, even rare insects nobody ever heard of can qualify for protection. Yet, if a solar developer wants to develop a 100 acre solar farm, that state agency begs off. I know because when a solar “farm” was proposed next to my ‘hood, I called that agency to report several rare species on that site – they told me that they are forbidden to get involved with “green” energy projects.
That is also true regarding the USDOJ “investigating” the Biden secret documents, which he pilfered while vice president, versus INVESTIGATING Trump for taking the same documents while president
Thanks David!
Fake green, anti environmental, diffuse, intermittent energy driven by crony capitalism and political agenda that only exists because of government subsidies/benefits and corrupt charlatans manipulating gullible people.
Wrecking the planet and killing wildlife to supposedly “save the planet”!
A standard green argument is that climate change is the greater threat to the whales. That is how Sierra Club and NRDC endorse OSW. Some even make the absurd argument that climate change is what is killing the whales.
But some whale groups strenuously object to OSW.
See https://www.cfact.org/2022/12/21/ten-whale-groups-slam-atlantic-osw/
They specifically warn against sonar surveys.
The bird choppers are also on the Atlantic Flyway. But ignoring birds and whales is required to be a good Green.
Idea for a new bumper sticker: Grave The Whales
So a couple of thousand dead sea animals is OK but if they find 2 dead ducks in a settling pond for an oil well in North Dakota all hell breaks loose. Lawsuits and all. Got it.
The government needs to be taken out of the power generation business. They really suck at it and in the end we will have to build the power generators we know work. This is so damn dumb.
No matter how you produce electricity, someone is against. It does not matter if you use coal, fission or wind or the sun.
The anti’s use the same tactics, deception. That is a polite word for lying. Big fat pants on fire lairs are fond of putting PHd behind their names.
I am retired from the side of the fence that produced electricity with fission. So while I think nukes are a better way to produce electricity in some cases, I am not against other way in other cases.
To clarify, NEPA requires an EIS finding of no significant impact.