By David Wojick
When the Feds finally do the cumulative environmental impact analysis for whales as mandated by the Endangered Species Act there are a number of basic issues to be resolved. Here is a quick look at some for the desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW).
Cumulative refers to the combined impact of multiple offshore projects. The first issue is which projects to combine for analysis. NARW are found along the entire Atlantic coastal waters which bounds the geography. Other endangered critters are found along the Gulf and West Coasts.
Projects can be in very different stages of development. Here is a hierarchy of sorts that gives several obvious options, from relatively small to enormous.
1. Projects built or approved for construction. There are about 10 of these. They are the immediate threat, but the overall threat to the NARW is, of course, much greater than this. Given that they have been approved for construction, it might be difficult to make big changes to protect the NARW, although not impossible.
2. The above, plus the projects actively seeking near-term approval. This is more like 30 projects, and the combined threat is very real. Cumulative impact analysis might seriously constrain this long list.
3. Next come the many projects listed in “AN ACTION PLAN FOR OFFSHORE WIND TRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT IN THE U.S. ATLANTIC REGION“. This Action Plan is from the Energy Department and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which is actually building the combined offshore wind monster.
The Action Plan shows specific projects in ever-increasing numbers by five-year increments, from 30,000 MW in 2030 to 85,000 MW in 2050. These projects are somewhat speculative, but since this is a BOEM Plan, its cumulative impact on the NARW should certainly be assessed for each five-year increment. It is likely that such a massive plan would be constrained by the results of this assessment.
For each cumulative impact assessment, the next question is, what potential impacts on the NARW to look at? Here are some obvious examples that I have discussed in prior articles.
A. Acoustic noise harassment from sources such as sonar surveys, site construction, as well as operation. Given that some approved individual projects have construction harassment estimates alone over 200 NARW each, the combined total harassment for all projects and sources could be enormous.
B. Moreover, it is likely that combined noises will create new levels of harassment. The potential for NARW extinction is obvious, given that their entire population is less than 350, with just 70 or so breeding females.
C. Adverse wake effects, such as reduced-energy air plumes and suspended sediment plumes that reduce food supplies. Here, clusters of nearby projects will be especially important. The Action Plan consists of numerous large clusters of projects.
D. Forced changes in navigation routes and fishing grounds which can lead to concentrated threats of deadly ship strikes and entanglement drownings. It is easy to forget that whales cannot breathe underwater.
It should be noted that adverse impacts can combine over time as well as space. The migratory NARW will be forced to run a gauntlet of successive projects stretching at least from Georgia to Maine.
Here is BOEM’s own discussion of the combined impacts over time for pile driving during construction of projects. I could not have said it better.
“It is possible that pile driving could displace animals into areas with lower habitat quality or higher risk of vessel collision or fisheries interaction. Multiple construction activities within the same calendar year could potentially affect migration, foraging, calving, and individual fitness. The magnitude of impacts would depend upon the locations, duration, and timing of concurrent construction. Such impacts could be long term, of high intensity, and of high exposure level. Generally, the more frequently an individual’s normal behaviors are disrupted or the longer the duration of the disruption, the greater the potential for biologically significant consequences to individual fitness. The potential for biologically significant effects is expected to increase with the number of pile-driving events to which an individual is exposed.”
Empire Wind, Draft Environmental Impact Statement v.1, Page 3.15-14, PDF page 372
[Editor’s note, now on page 409 of the current final EIS as of 5/13/2024]
No doubt there are other important issues to consider in a proper cumulative impact analysis.
Collectively, offshore wind is a massive proposed multi-project program with equally massive combined environmental impacts. These cumulative impacts must be assessed under the Endangered Species Act for the desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and all the other listed critters that would be affected.
Constraint in project impact should be the order of the day.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“No doubt there are other important issues to consider in a proper cumulative impact analysis”
Such as the impact on global temperature?
Amazing that flora & fauna ( including whales & man ) have survived much higher & lower global temperatures, but now ‘planet saving grifters’ sod everything up just to make a profit.
Offshore wind increases emissions:
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Wojick-Driessen-How-Offshore-Wind-Drives-Up-Global-Carbon-Emissions-FINAL.pdf
In simple terms (1) intermittency dramatically decreases the efficiency of gas fired power used as backup so their emissions do not go down much if at all and (2) OSW uses huge amounts of emission intensive materials from far away. Local emissions do not go down and global emissions go up.
Thanks for all this work David. After reading it seems astounding that in the face of all the blatantly obvious environmental damage being done, there is not a glimmer of doubt from our policymakers, the juggernaut keeps on rolling.
I keep going back to Bronowski’s essay on Knowledge and Certainty”:
“It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.”
Certainly true at BOEM. I think NOAA/NMFS is being rolled by the Biden Bosses. The passage I cite is something the whale scientists sneaked in. They see the damage but are silenced.
The common sense view:
“…offshore wind is a massive proposed multi-project program with equally massive combined environmental impacts. These cumulative impacts must be assessed under the Endangered Species Act for the desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and all the other listed critters that would be affected.”
And according to the [6th form] alarmists
“Energy industry uses whale activists to aid anti-wind farm strategy, experts say
…
“She thinks a train wreck is coming,” said Roberts, referring to Knight’s fears of how wind power will push right whales to extinction.
…
The anti-wind narrative has gained traction as higher numbers of right whales washing up on beaches have been recorded in recent years, leading the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) to designate an “unusual mortality event”.
Noaa has said there are no links between these whale deaths and the early phases of offshore wind construction.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/17/anti-wind-farm-whale-defenders-fossil-fuel-industry
This one is a nostalgic look back for the kids at the Grauniad – have they heard of Owen Coffin?
“Starbuck’s sharpening his harpoon
The black man’s playing his tune
An old salt’s sleeping his watch away
He’ll be drunk again before noon
Three years sailing on bended knee
We found no whales in the sea
Don’t cry, little Robin-Marie
‘Cause we’ll be in sight of land soon”
If I had to be stuck in a time…good song.
There must be a presumption that there is a link until proven otherwise.
“Noaa has said”
It’s our old friend, argumentum ad verecundiam.
Nice Latin term- never heard it. Took 2 years of the language of my ancient ancestors in high school. So many things I learn here. When I discuss/debate with people here in Wokeachusetts, they all seem rather stupid compared to the discussions here-yet, the state is soooo sure it’s the smartest place on the planet. 🙂
And yet the passage I cite is from NOAA.
Story tip – Blowin’ in the Wind: Boston Startup to Create a Vaccine to Reduce Cow Emissions – PJ Media
Story tip – re-election edition
Nevermind the spiral of crime…
Sadiq Khan looks set to discuss Ulez with Pope Francis in a behind closed-door meeting in the Vatican City this week.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/ulez-to-be-discussed-by-sadiq-khan-with-the-pope-in-behind-closed-doors-meeting/ar-BB1mmFmF
FFS
Is this to do with reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
No it is about combined environmental damage from a huge number of wind facilities. But in fact emissions are not reduced as explained in an earlier comment.
David I recently came across this publication by BVG Associates ‘Guide to a Floating Offshore Wind Farm’ published on behalf of Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland.(May 2023) 176 pages and many photographs.Thought you would be interested
I did post about it on a recent open thread but there is more chance you will see it here.
Search BVGA-1644-Floating-Guide
Thanks Dave! Floating wind costs way more and is way worse in some ways.
Anyone know about coupling very low frequency acoustic energy across the air water boundary? I know the coupling is very low for human audible frequencies, but what about the wop-wop infra-sound of huge wind turbines?
That is indeed something to study and no doubt has its effect.
Consider that the thrumming is also transmitted the entire length of the tower all the way down to the ocean floor anchorage. That too is a problem.
Just have the whales declare a gender identity.
Hilarious. Something suitable for weighing 15 tons.
There is an important question with regard wind energy. Even if it could be extracted at zero capital cost, how big is the available resource?
Most people would consider wind at global scale or even local scale to be an infinite resource but there is no available data on the total energy in global wind and how long it took to wind up.
We look at solar energy conversion and realise that places with dense population like the UK with poor solar resource, there is not enough land area to place solar panels to produce the current energy demand. And UK makes nothing so that is just to run their farming and financial sectors. Their agriculture would have to give way to solar extraction. Stilling air along their coastline may have already begun the demise of their agriculture.
Coal miners know they need to keep developing their resources and doing the necessary study to convert the resource into reserves. There is no such requirement for wind energy harvesters. They just assume the resource is unlimited and unaltered by their extraction of the resource.
At local level, important aspects of weather such as rainfall are very sensitive to air currents. Stilling air flow along coastlines has to be as bad an idea imaginable for creating deserts. Placing wind turbines along the east coast of USA will make it look like the west coast and the wind turbines along the west coast will make it look like the northern Sahara. Atmospheric water is such an important contributor to habitability.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/05/wind-turbines-could-steal-as-much-as-38-of-the-power-off-turbines-downwind-and-even-from-ones-50-kilometers-away/
This shouldn’t even be an issue. The endangered whales are far more important than short lived, high maintenance, expensive, pitiful output wind turbines. The only future disturbance the whales should experience is that of the current turbines being removed.
Federal Court: Navy Must Limit Long-Range Sonar Use to Protect Marine Mammals
Siding with NGOs for 3rd time, Court tells Navy that protecting marine mammal habitat is “of paramount importance” July 18, 2016
the court also found that:
Protecting marine mammal habitat from Navy sonar is “of paramount importance” under the law.The Fisheries Service has an independent responsibility to ensure the “least practicable impact on marine mammals” (i.e., the lowest possible level of harm)before giving the Navy – or anyone else – permission to harm these protected species; and that the Fisheries Service must err on the side of overprotection rather than underprotection.Following is a statement from co-plaintiff Michael Stocker, director of Ocean Conservation Research: “It is such an important step to have the court recognize that the ocean is an acoustic habitat as well as a living environment.”